Is Mutiny afoot?

[Thailand_Dan]

Haven't seen this talked about so I figured I'd ask. Before the last update, you could form a guild, recruit who ever you wanted and kick anyone. If the guild became inactive, or if you simply got tired of the name, you could disband, and form up another one. However, with guild ratings, guilds now have some value. Which leads me to my question?

Is a mechanism going to be put in place for mutiny? If the leader becomes a total ________, or even if they become inactive, it would be nice for remaining members to "take over" the guild. In Imperium Online, one of the few other MMOs I've played (DDO takes up enough of my time), anyone could challenge leadership, and it was put to a vote. When challenged for leadership, noone could be booted until the election was finalized. If a new leader was elected, the leader could make changes to officers. Of course votes were based on how large your kingdom was.

I know this will probably cause a lot of drama, but the current guild system which has been in place since the game started doesn't seem to be appropriately matched with the current rules of the game.

[Gkar]

The problem of course is the leader paid for a guild charter, and may have invested other funds knowing that the guild couldn't be taken from them. Any change at this point would be problematic.

And yes, lots of people have predicted that the first disband by a guild leader after people have paid real cash for an airship will be interesting.

[Ashurr]

Personally, and as a Guild leader myself, I'm all for a Mutiny feature. From a RP stance is just makes sense.

Don't want your members rallying against you - don't be a D-Bag.

I think it would almost have to be implemented to where if a Guild has an airship, it can't be disbanded. ( not too realistic, but it would cut down on players leaving the game, and/or constantly whining)

[flynnjsw]

The problem of course is the leader paid for a guild charter, and may have invested other funds knowing that the guild couldn't be taken from them. Any change at this point would be problematic.

And yes, lots of people have predicted that the first disband by a guild leader after people have paid real cash for an airship will be interesting.

Pay for a guild charter? People actually do that?

[Hambo]

Pay for a guild charter? People actually do that?

Non VIP players have to buy a charter, I believe.

I'd like to see a mechanism for changing leadership based on an officer election. Say, for example, the guild founder has been in absentia for over six months (or whatever time frame is deemed fair by Turbine), with no successor named.

The officers could schedule a meeting, perhaps with a button on the guild page, by sending an in-game mail message to all officers, at which time the vote would occur.

If the vote succeeds, then the successor becomes leader, although if that player had been active they probably would have usurped by then... If the successor has also been absent for the specified period of time then they could immediately be voted out.

After the above vote(s) have occured then the election of a new leader takes place.

To change the subject, I think that if a guild disbands then all guild awards, including the Airship should immediately be removed.

If a guild shrinks drastically due to Alts being involuntarily bumped then there should be some kind of "personal renown share" that is removed from the guild that goes with the Alt... This would make them more attractive to a new guild, but it would dissipate over a short period of time.

[IronClan]

IMO this is a PvP style feature in a decidedly non PvP game. If I pay for a guild charter or even just come up with the name/concept for a guild it's mine. No one has the right to take over my guild, and I'd rather see the renown system scrapped than use it as an excuse to put political drama BS voting/mutiny into the guild system.

If you don't like the way things are in your guild you have the right to form your own guild and take other "mutiny" minded guildies with you >period<.

Better options for solving this "problem" (if it really needs solving) include in order of sensibleness:
A) joining a guild that doesn't have an a$$hat for a leader
B) putting in a system where renown stays with the individual player. If he leaves the guild his renown leaves.
C) dumping the renown system
D) having a pure super majority based vote system that can be vetoed by any officer or the leader of the guild... In other words you would only be able to take over the guild if NO officer objected, AND the leader didn't object, and a large majority of the active members voted. Basically getting you the ability to take over a guild that the leader is no longer active in... And even with that the leader should keep the guild name and have an empty level XX (whatever it was minus renown decay) guild if he comes back to the game. When the voting ends the new split off guild would get the option to name themselves and elect a leader and would be the same level as the old guild.

The major problem with voting systems is they are easy to abuse (trivial, any officer just starts 30 new f2p accounts, guilds them all and then votes himself the new owner of the guild.) and are prone to cliques or other guilds predating smaller guilds just because that's what 13 year olds love to do... Ever use IRC back in the day? Don't tell me school kids wont try to take over stuff just for the **** of it...

[mjrepro]

If the guild leader becomes inactive for a period of time, you can take over, but only the person that the guild leader has assigned a co-leader (at work atm, and cannot remember the exact term for the position), that person can usurp control of the guild and take over.

Yes, the guild leader has to assign the person, so make sure the leader as done so and it is not his account. That is the fail safe that turbine has put in the game, and it is not their fault if no one uses it. Like seat belts and how I ignore them, Ford is not responsible for my injuries caused by that.

[Modinator0]

No, mutiny is a hand.

[Thailand_Dan]

Good points all. I'll be the first to say that the whole U5, has some serious flaws in it's implementation. Personally, I'd rather they had just done regular old guild housing with a guild bank and be done with it. The hook points, work-out dummy and the rest seem a bit, useless to me. But, it is here, so I can accept it, but looking down the line, I think we are going to see some serious problems and baby-mama-drama type arguments: "It's my guild, I started it" "But I spent $200 to get the upgraded ship", etc., etc.

Personally, I like guilds that are fun and active. And I tend to move towards those types the most. I am hoping these are the types of guilds that will steer clear of the heavy favor grind, and just have fun.

I'm not saying the system is currently broken, but I think some warning labels might be in order:

NOTE: if you get booted from your guild, after you spend like RL$50 on this ship, you have no recourse. How well do you know your guildies?

[Xatasha]

A mutiny would cause to much trouble since some players pay for a charter. If you and others hate your guild then leave it a form your own.

As for a disband tho maybe make it so it takes 3 days to go thru and ask other players if they want to take over the guild.

[Rumbaar]

No chance, not without greater [much needed] overhaul of the Guild system.

You would need things like ranks for various management levels.
The ability for leaders to see account information.
Name more people than just a successor.

Currently the nature of how Turbine has setup guilds is at odds to the resources required to acquire guild specific items.

You need persons to input in game platinum, resources or even $$$ [via Astral diamonds], but do not have any safe guards from being exploited by people in game for doing such things.

I truly hope we do not get instances of major in game betrayals like other games get from lax guild game mechanics and structures.

[azrael4h]

I truly hope we do not get instances of major in game betrayals like other games get from lax guild game mechanics and structures.

Sadly, we will. It won't be very long before we see "guilds" that are spamming invites lately, after leveling and getting someone in their membership to put down cash for a ship, booting a large chunk of their membership, including the ones who paid for most of the amenities. Then the remainder can take advantage of the small guild renown bonuses and remain at their current level.

U5, in short, was among the worst-thought out messes I've ever seen in two decades plus of gaming. To the point that I seriously doubt any of it was ever tested at all. Certainly the myriad bugs and exploits that were pointed out in Lam were ignored. Is it a wonder I've stopped giving Turbine money?

[Rumbaar]

Sadly, we will. It won't be very long before we see "guilds" that are spamming invites lately, after leveling and getting someone in their membership to put down cash for a ship, booting a large chunk of their membership, including the ones who paid for most of the amenities. Then the remainder can take advantage of the small guild renown bonuses and remain at their current level.

U5, in short, was among the worst-thought out messes I've ever seen in two decades plus of gaming. To the point that I seriously doubt any of it was ever tested at all. Certainly the myriad bugs and exploits that were pointed out in Lam were ignored. Is it a wonder I've stopped giving Turbine money?I wonder what it would take for a Guild leader to get to L25 Guild, with the second tier Store ship and then sell the whole guild for platinum ...

[Pugsley]

LOTRO (the other Turbine MMO) lets you usurp the guild leader if they haven't logged in in awhile, anyway.