New changes for guilds with absent leaders

[Bladedge]

Codeshaper has posted some bug fixes at http://my.ddo.com/codeshaper/2011/01/31/the-shape-of-the-code-silence/ including

Finally, a guild with an absent leader and/or successor should now be able to usurp leadership. Here’s how it will work: If the leader has been inactive for 35 days, the successor can usurp. After 10 more days (for a total of 45,) if there is no successor or if the successor hasn’t usurped, then an officer can usurp. If after an additional 10 days (for a total of 55) no officers have usurped, then a member can usurp. Remember that, as always, these times are based on character inactivity, not account inactivity. So if you’re a leader who’s been playing an alt for 34 days, you might want to play the leader again!



Correct. That functionality has been in the game since launch (though at some point recently it had some flaky behavior preventing it from working for the successor in a few cases).
Post script: Now that I think about it, it may not have been with initial launch, but it's been there for as long as I can remember, and I joined the game in 06.


I'm not entirely up to speed on what features LOTRO players can pay for with Turbine Points, I may have to snag Sapience on that one. I do know that they have guild housing that requires a hefty plat (er gold sorry, their version is gold) contribution to acquire and maintain. If they don't pay their upkeep, they lose access to the entire house last I knew, guild raid trophies and all. At some point they built a system to allow players to re-pay the fee to get it all back, but until that is met, the entire house is inaccessible.

To create a guild in the first place they must
- Pay for a charter
- Be above a certain character level to get the charter
- Have at least eight other characters (with at least two separate accounts)
- If they don't get it together within 5 days of forming, it auto disbands.
- If they don't have a minimum of 8 characters, they have 5 days to get those numbers back up or it disbands.
- If the entire guild goes inactive, it disbands.


Their leadership also can be usurped by the successor, followed by officer, followed by members, followed by no more guild exists at all (and so far as I'm aware, when that happens, no more house exists either. Again I'll have to check with Sapience on that).


Codeshaper's looking into how tricky it would be to base it off inactivity rather than failure to usurp. It does sound reasonable that if the successor has the option, doesn't take it, but the option is there for the time they need it, they could use it.

In theory a successor can usurp, assign the old leader as the guild's successor, do what they need to do in terms of "grooming" officership or adding officers, then "step down" which would put the leadership back in the hands of the proper leader character without the successor having to hang onto leadersihp the whole time and feel weird the day the leader suddenly reappears. Likewise officers/members could also use this technique if the successor went missing.


There *may* be a way to prioritize it based on the "seniority" of the members i.e. a brand new person isn't next in line over someone whose been there since the beginning. Not knowing what would be involved for that I don't want to make promises on his behalf, but I will definitely bring it up with Codeshaper. Would such a method help?


They brought it to us first :eek: we've been tracking this issue for quite some time (it's spiked in my top tens on several occasions over the years). According to my records the LOTRO system was cited repeatedly by players as "why don't you just do it like your other game" (especially once renown got involved). Now it could be that players were upset and speaking from a "grass is always greener" perspective, so we tried to shoot somewhere in the middle, as there were some things about the LOTRO system that we didn't feel would be appropriate for DDO. As with anything in the game, nothing is ever set in stone.


Right that's what I mean was assuming it was all based on inactivity through the promotion scheme rather than failure to use the button.


Tolero is right, we do read the forums when we can. And for the love of all the gods, please don't let dev thoughts out into the wild! It's a scenario that just doesn't bear considering. <Shudder>


OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.
Thanks, all!


History:

Module 2: Twilight Forge
A "usurp" button has been added to the Guild UI. This button will appear on the Guild Successor's Guild UI once the Guild Leader has not logged in for 3 weeks. Pressing the button will auto-promote the Guild Successor to Guild Leader. We highly recommend that all guilds choose a successor, so that your guild will not be left without a guild leader.

[Dysmetria]

Codeshaper has posted some bug fixes at http://my.ddo.com/codeshaper/2011/01/31/the-shape-of-the-code-silence/ including

Finally, a guild with an absent leader and/or successor should now be able to usurp leadership. Here’s how it will work: If the leader has been inactive for 35 days, the successor can usurp. After 10 more days (for a total of 45,) if there is no successor or if the successor hasn’t usurped, then an officer can usurp. If after an additional 10 days (for a total of 55) no officers have usurped, then a member can usurp. Remember that, as always, these times are based on character inactivity, not account inactivity. So if you’re a leader who’s been playing an alt for 34 days, you might want to play the leader again!So if you have to leave the game for over a month, due to a military deployment or whatever, then you should just expect that control of your guild will be stripped from you regardless of your wishes?

[Doganpc]

I could have sworn that with a recent update renown was attached to characters now. So if a character leaves, he takes his renown (that he's accumulated since said update) with him now...

Dogan
The obvious answer is, leave & reform under new leadership.

[yawumpus]

The "bug" this fixes is that it changes the option from allowing a designator successor to usurp, to essentially requiring it. Should a week (or whatever) time pass without a "proper" usurpation, the entire guild can be taken over at whim by anyone. While I would expect that most guilds won't go the way that happened to the Korthos Army, your results may vary. Most of the issues come from the way DDO implies absolute power for the guild leader, consider the recent sale of a guild (there is a forum thread where the purchaser asks for hints on running his new guild).

To remove this bug, you would have to allow an officer to first usurp successorship, then leadership. Presumably no member would be allowed to promote themselves to officership unless all officers were inactive.

From the sound of it, this part of the codebase isn't the best to work on (I've heard some interesting bugs that happened when they allowed custom ranks). I can't believe this situation is sufficiently common to justify risking the codebase.

/not signed

[auximenes]

55 days from start 'til end is too short IMO. I think the time between when the Officers gain the Usurp option and when it becomes open to Members should be more like 60 days. That would mean it takes 95 days with no Leader, Successor, and/or Officer checking-in before a Member can take over.

[protokon]

I could have sworn that with a recent update renown was attached to characters now. So if a character leaves, he takes his renown (that he's accumulated since said update) with him now...

Dogan
The obvious answer is, leave & reform under new leadership.

The way the system now works is the renown you accumulate on each character is now recorded, and you can view it by mousing over your guild level in the guild tab under the social panel.

When you leave, you are prompted with an option to leave on bad terms, or not to. if you leave on bad terms I believe 100% of the renown is stripped from the guild (this number I am not sure of) if you decide to leave on good terms, only 10% of the renown you have accumulated will be stripped away.

...On top of this, the renown you gain counts for your current guild only; if you left and joined a new guild, any renown gained previous to joining the new guild is not added to your new one.

...So reforming a guild will consist of starting at level 1 again.

[JarvisW]

I don't see a problem with this.

If you are going on extended deployment (or just taking a break from the game), you should already be assigning a temporary leader, or at least a 2nd in command anyway. If you can't trust that person to return the Star when you get back, you shouldn't be guildmates in the first place!

All in all, good. I've been in guilds that had leaders disappear for one reason or another, and waiting more than 2 months to fix that is ridiculous.

[Falco_Easts]

So if you have to leave the game for over a month, due to a military deployment or whatever, then you should just expect that control of your guild will be stripped from you regardless of your wishes?

Well if you are away for a month you aren't doing much in the way of guild leadership in that time anyway are you? Pass the leadership onto a trusted officer before you go who will pass it back when you return. If you don't have a trusted officer, who's fault is that?

Overall a good idea. I think the 10 days that only an officer can usurp should be extended but that aside good idea.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

The time for the officers to usurp is probably a bit short. The time for members to usurp is insanely short.

This in fact forces the successor to usurp even if they don't want to. This is the wrong approach.

[sirgog]

I like these changes.

In practice, an officer will pretty much always usurp (are there guilds where no officers at all log on for ten days)? A message should probably be sent out to everyone after the first 35 days, however.

[JakLee7]

sounds like a solid plan!

[articwarrior]

/not signed

if it gets as bad that a member may usurp then the guild may as well not exist and that specific member would be too powerful

[biggin]

The time for the officers to usurp is probably a bit short. The time for members to usurp is insanely short.

This in fact forces the successor to usurp even if they don't want to. This is the wrong approach.

This.

I think the same amount of time from leader to officer should apply from officer to member. However, I really don't forsee all officers and leader of a guild all to be consecutively gone for that long. And I agree, leaders better have the officers in line that can be trusted to handle it like they would want it handled. However, with guilds of friends, this is a non-issue.

[Ungood]

It should stop at Officer.

If you have a guild where not one single officer is doing anything, it is time to leave that guild and join a different one.

[ZeroTakenaka]

It should stop at Officer.

If you have a guild where not one single officer is doing anything, it is time to leave that guild and join a different one.

Agreed.

As an aside, if there are no officers then go to members.

[CaseStringer]

If you opt to leave a Guild on bad terms. You only take 25% of what you earned away...

[moritheil]

Oh man, looks like my Paladin left her guild a bit soon! (Only active officer for several months; finally got fed up and left.)

Still, I'm sure this will be a welcome change for those who haven't quite ditched yet.

[MRH]

/not signed

[Dolphious]

Originally Posted by Ungood
It should stop at Officer.

If you have a guild where not one single officer is doing anything, it is time to leave that guild and join a different one.
Agreed.

As an aside, if there are no officers then go to members.

Guilds have different organizational structures. I wouldn't hard code out the possibility that members could usurp given sufficient time.

[Zzevel]

So if you have to leave the game for over a month, due to a military deployment or whatever, then you should just expect that control of your guild will be stripped from you regardless of your wishes?


A guild is more than any one person...

[donfilibuster]

35-55 days is too little, the seasonal players should still be able to make casual guilds.
A two month absence isn't uncommon with mid-size guild officers, the leader isn't different.

May be this can be made so that officer's can't usurp unless the succesor is inactive.
If the succesor is inactive then the members can't usurp unless all the officers are inactive.

And even with this feature a full guild rank system would still be better and needed.

[Paddycolver]

I like this, but I agree the time between an officer and member usurping should be extended, it might take mroe than 10 days for a consensus of who should take over to be reached.

this would have been useful when I was in Keeper EU. I was in a guild called May Contain Nuttiness and our leader disapeared, but the guild had a good...well it had a reputation we enjoyed. but after a couple of months with no leader the guild was eventually dispanded.

[Codeshaper]

We're starting with these numbers because they are the same as the LOTRO timeline. If that turns out not to be correct for DDO, we will look at changing them. There are some other good ideas mentioned here that we'll keep in mind, but the system itself isn't likely to be revised for a few updates, at least.

[jortann]

Is this something that is coming with the next update? Or is it already implemented?

And if it will be implemented with the next update how will it work if your guild leader has already be gone for 2 months? Will the 10 day period start then? Or after 55 days can anyone usurp?

[Pape_27]

this whole idea is just plain wrong.

First, if anyone stays in a guild where the leader - without reason - does not log in for more than a month, why are you staying in that guild? leave. Start your own, find another guild to join up with.

Secondly, the guild leader may have paid money for the guild charter. Giving someone the ability to take it away is tantamount to stealing. Since Turbine is behind this, are they going to refund the money/tp to the guild leader who started the guild? Since they are putting a mechanism into the game that says someone can take the guild, they become liable for the cost imo.

[The_Phenx]

We're starting with these numbers because they are the same as the LOTRO timeline. If that turns out not to be correct for DDO, we will look at changing them. There are some other good ideas mentioned here that we'll keep in mind, but the system itself isn't likely to be revised for a few updates, at least.

How about fixing guild reknown to be a mixture of difficulty of quest vs # of players vs number of monsters killed vs player deaths, award it on completion per player, like you do XP, and dump the silly tokens.

If your victory is truly legendary then thats what you should recieve.

A higher level guild should be based on performance, not random loot drops... IMHO.

[Kominalito]

So if you have to leave the game for over a month, due to a military deployment or whatever, then you should just expect that control of your guild will be stripped from you regardless of your wishes?

yes. im assuming if you are on "military deployment" then running your guild really shouldnt be that high on your priority list.

[jortann]

I agree with the stealing aspect. I would hate this to happen to me, but if I wasn't logging on I'm guessing I wouldn't care.

But a friend of mine is in a guild. After being in the guild for a couple months he found he was the only one who had logged in within the last three weeks. Some people hadn't logged in months. Fortunately, when he joined he insisted that they make him an officer. So, instead of quitting he is now running the guild. He booted all the inactives and is inviting everyone he sees. He has it up to like 20 active players. It appears that the leader will not be back anytime soon, so he would certainly like to have that title... no use having a inactive leader.

I wonder if after you usurp the leader you can boot the old leader? That shouldn't be allowed. It is his guild afterall.

[Dysmetria]

yes. im assuming if you are on "military deployment" then running your guild really shouldnt be that high on your priority list.No but when you return from that deployment to find the guild charter/airship you paid your $ for has been stripped from you against your wishes despite letting everyone know you would be back, getting your guild back or your $ back may be high on your priority list.

[IronClan]

So you're TR'ing an alt, you don't comb release notes or spend much time on the forums (like 95% of the player base). You are focused on your flavor of the month TR, for a while, and your vacation is coming up, so you tell your officers you'll be back in a couple weeks and you don't log in at all for a few days while you get everything straight, and fly off to Hawaii... Come back with a Tan and a smile, only to log in to find that your guild is now owned by one of the newer officers who decided to help himself to the usurp button because none of your more trusted officers clicked it before the newer guy decided to take over.

Nothing spectacular or highly unlikely in any of the above, yet that guy lost his guild for no good reason due to a policy that is needlessly bare bones (no voting, no safe guards) and can't be opted out of...

So turbine I hope you plan to institute a complete no questions asked refund policy on all TP spent by leaders on guilds that are stolen from them by this mindlessly simplistic easily abused mechanic.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

We're starting with these numbers because they are the same as the LOTRO timeline. If that turns out not to be correct for DDO, we will look at changing them. There are some other good ideas mentioned here that we'll keep in mind, but the system itself isn't likely to be revised for a few updates, at least.

Wouldn't it be wiser to start with a LONGER timeline? You can't exactly give a guild back to someone after bad usurps.

[donfilibuster]

There ought to be some 'vacation mode' or some option to lock your guild.
People will know that if they join a locked guild they won't be able to usurp and won't join.
In the end it must be something the players can choose and not a game mechanic.



Wouldn't it be wiser to start with a LONGER timeline? You can't exactly give a guild back to someone after bad usurps.

This.



First, if anyone stays in a guild where the leader - without reason - does not log in for more than a month, why are you staying in that guild? leave. Start your own, find another guild to join up with.


Chances are it is the other members who will want to stay together, not everyone wants to bother with a new guild.
A decent airship is enough reason to keep a small guild alive.


yes. im assuming if you are on "military deployment" then running your guild really shouldnt be that high on your priority list.
But these players are no different from any other player, they'll want their ship back and continue playing.

[Hordo]

We're starting with these numbers because they are the same as the LOTRO timeline. If that turns out not to be correct for DDO, we will look at changing them. There are some other good ideas mentioned here that we'll keep in mind, but the system itself isn't likely to be revised for a few updates, at least.

/NOT signed

If I want to take a break from a TOON, I should be able to.

If I want to take a break from an ACCOUNT, I should be able to.

If I go back in the hospital and can't log on at all for another month, I should be able to log back on and STILL BE LEADER OF MY GUILD.

[Lost_Leader]

I don't mind this concept, though I agree with many folks that the timers are too short.

I don't see it ever being a problem for me as it is intended to be implemented, but I can see where it could cause issues for the more casual of crews. And DDO is full of casual players and guilds.

[Belwaar]

Yeah I don't see the point in this at all...but as always, great idea Turbine! Good to see you're focusing on advancing the game, as you should be. :)

[Gornn]

This is a terrible idea.

[bigolbear]

ok i REALY dont like this.

I appreciate that an absent leader can cause an issue however.

A simple solution is that a guild founder or any of their alts can at any time retake leadership of a guild. (they payed for the charter after all), and that any usurped guild cannot be disbanded and officers cant be kicked.

Ive ran a guild before many moons ago and i have been absent for over a month on 2 occasions, i was in hospital one time and moving house the other. id hate to see a guild get disbanded because some one falls ill or real life causes a little hiccup in their oh so important gaming schedule for a month.

[TWDiggs1980]

/Not Signed

This is absolutely one of the worst ideas I think you have come up with to date.

[7-day_Trial_Monkey]

So turbine I hope you plan to institute a complete no questions asked refund policy on all TP spent by leaders on guilds that are stolen from them by this mindlessly simplistic easily abused mechanic.

Mindless is the leader who puts themselves in that situation by not promoting to leader someone they trust before going away. On their return, they can have leadership given back.

[Gornn]

/Not Signed

This is absolutely one of the worst ideas I think you have come up with to date.

Which says something. 'cause there've been some bad ones.

Offer wall?

[Ungood]

Now that I look at it, I think the time should be affected by the size of the guild, in both renound and members.

Ergo: The Larger the Guild the more active the Guild Leader must be, as opposed to an across the board blanket time frame.

[Elyanna]

I would say the number of days is too short and I'm not sure that I like the fact that a member could overstep the officers.

If there are active officers that don't usurp then a member should NEVER be able to usurp.

[Zippo]

Finally, a guild with an absent leader and/or successor should now be able to usurp leadership. Here’s how it will work: If the leader has been inactive for 35 days, the successor can usurp. After 10 more days (for a total of 45,) if there is no successor or if the successor hasn’t usurped, then an officer can usurp. If after an additional 10 days (for a total of 55) no officers have usurped, then a member can usurp. Remember that, as always, these times are based on character inactivity, not account inactivity. So if you’re a leader who’s been playing an alt for 34 days, you might want to play the leader again!


http://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachments/screenshots/68080d1206754537-animated-gif-thread-ban-him-thumbs-down.gif

[Zippo]

Which says something. 'cause there've been some bad ones.

Offer wall?

I don't know the offer wall still eeks past this on the colossally stupid scale but only marginally.

[MeliCat]

Given the number of players who go on active service months at a time this seems a bit unfair. Is it just thoughtlessness or are you actually trying to give these worthy people a hard time?

Not a good idea.

[silverraven]

I would agree with this on one condition....IF a member usurps the guild he can be voted of the Island and that account is thus banned from the game.:D

[Schmoe]

I don't like the changes. At the very least, it should be on an account basis.

[Mr_Tank]

After a year and some change PL will finaly have a leader once more. However the time should be extended between the different rank brackets by months.

[donfilibuster]

If there are active officers that don't usurp then a member should NEVER be able to usurp.

this

[Lorien_the_First_One]

I would say the number of days is too short and I'm not sure that I like the fact that a member could overstep the officers.

If there are active officers that don't usurp then a member should NEVER be able to usurp.

I agree. If there are officers who aren't taking leadership clearly its a deliberate act and there is still working control within the guild.

[parvo]

So if you have to leave the game for over a month, due to a military deployment or whatever, then you should just expect that control of your guild will be stripped from you regardless of your wishes?

I think not. If you have a trusted second in command/successor they do not have to usurp. It's a choice they can make.

As an aside, I don't think a lot of folks get deployed for one month. I'm thinking it's usually much longer...

[Lorien_the_First_One]

I think not. If you have a trusted second in command/successor they do not have to usurp. It's a choice they can make.

As an aside, I don't think a lot of folks get deployed for one month. I'm thinking it's usually much longer...

Take a loot at the rules again. If the 2nd in command doesn't usurp, the officers can a few days later. If the officers dont userp, a few days later any member can.

[parvo]

Also, this is a change that's a long long time comming. I've seen an otherwise perfectly good PD guild disolve because the leader didn't have the common decency to pass the star. No leader means no new officers. No new officers means no one can recruit rerolls after a character death.

What we really need is a comprehensive set of decent guild tools including fully customizable permisions regarding recruiting/expelling, promoting/demoting, MOTD, ship ameneties, etc...

[joneb1999]

The balance for this action being tantamount to stealing and also for bad usurpers is to allow any leadership other than the original leaders to be temporary whilst that leader is still in the guild. The original leader should be able to give "temporary" leadership and at all times be able to retake the guild leadership when logging back in with that toon if he wants, as long as he didnt leave the guild with it (a leader who gives temporary leadership should be exempt from being kicked from the guild by any temporary leader or an officer). It could be a pop up window when he logs in to the game with his previous leader toon that gives him the option to retake his old role.

This way if he is happy with the current leader and is only logging in to say hi but cant come back to play he can elect to leave the leadership with the usurper. If he isnt happy with the usurper he can give the temporary leadership to another or if he is coming back permanent he can retake the leadership.

[DarkSpectre]

I would say the number of days is too short and I'm not sure that I like the fact that a member could overstep the officers.

If there are active officers that don't usurp then a member should NEVER be able to usurp.

I agree that a member should never be able to take over under any circumstance....

[parvo]

Take a loot at the rules again. If the 2nd in command doesn't usurp, the officers can a few days later. If the officers dont userp, a few days later any member can.

Meh...In any case, the trusted second in command can Usurp and simply pass the star back when the leader returns. Whatever the case, this is so way far better than letting perfectly good guilds die off. I support 100 billion infinity percent +.

[Zippo]

I think not. If you have a trusted second in command/successor they do not have to usurp. It's a choice they can make.

As an aside, I don't think a lot of folks get deployed for one month. I'm thinking it's usually much longer...

It depends on your classification of deployed. Depending on your MOS in the Army you can often find yourself in field exercises lasting a month or more and in the Navy they have the tendency of taking short hops for a month 3 months 6 months and with that Marines can get stuck on those movements. Air Force is less likely but still a possibility, and Coast Guard units can find themselves on movements that can include patrolling the coastline/ ports/ and in some cases places like the Suez canal (they patrolled it during the first Gulf War) for extended periods.

[parvo]

We're starting with these numbers because they are the same as the LOTRO timeline. If that turns out not to be correct for DDO, we will look at changing them. There are some other good ideas mentioned here that we'll keep in mind, but the system itself isn't likely to be revised for a few updates, at least.


There is nothing at all wrong with the numbers. I've worked harder than most to build an incredible guild. Been here for over three years. But if I leave the game for a month and don't have the common decency to pass the star, the members shouldn't get screwed. That's what this is about. Guild member rights, not guild leader rights. You want a guild? Log on at least once per month. Takes one minute of your time.

For everyone complaining about the time period. If you can't find one person in your guild that you trust as a second in command, there's something wrong.

If you are gone for a long time, simply have the second in command Usurp, set the original leader as successor. Leader returns. Swap back. That simple.

[joneb1999]

Temp leader is the way to go!
http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=3566540&postcount=54

[parvo]

It depends on your classification of deployed. Depending on your MOS in the Army you can often find yourself in field exercises lasting a month or more and in the Navy they have the tendency of taking short hops for a month 3 months 6 months and with that Marines can get stuck on those movements. Air Force is less likely but still a possibility, and Coast Guard units can find themselves on movements that can include patrolling the coastline/ ports/ and in some cases places like the Suez canal (they patrolled it during the first Gulf War) for extended periods.

Indeed. However it doesn't change things. If the leader is gone for over a month, a trusted second in command should be able to take the reins.

[Phemt81]

Absolutely A W E S O M E ! ! ! :D

And goffard came back the same istant lol

[stainer]

We're starting with these numbers because they are the same as the LOTRO timeline. If that turns out not to be correct for DDO, we will look at changing them. There are some other good ideas mentioned here that we'll keep in mind, but the system itself isn't likely to be revised for a few updates, at least.

Why do you hate us?

[DarkSpectre]

Why do you hate us?

The Greenis has entered the building!

./win

[eris2323]

So I assume Turbine will be providing full refunds for all turbine points spent creating guilds, and all turbine point spent for diamonds for guild ships to any leader who is usurped who requests it?

If not, sounds like pure, simple theft to me. Your guild dies, go join a new one, don't steal someones money.

Therefore, it sounds to me like Turbine supports theft of my money because it thinks the thing I purchased isn't being used to someone elses idea of it's potential? Tough. QUIT THE DEAD GUILD GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.


IT'S MINE, I BOUGHT IT, GO AWAY, BUY YOUR OWN.

This is real money spent, Turbine. And this would be theft.

[etla]

This is something that is sorely needed. Take the case of a medium sized (say 25-30 members) friendly guild of, oh, level 50. Disbanding and starting anew is a non starter because the guild is valuable because of the grind to get to 50. The owner and second are friends in IRL (extremely common for guilds to start this way) and get taken out by a bus on the way back from a bar one night. Now the guild is leaderless and without some way of transferring control it withers and dies.

Personally a restriction that only officers can usurp seems reasonable. Wouldn't make any difference in my case because every player in my guild has an alt with officer status but I can see how that would be advantageous if we ever start recruiting out of our circle of friends.

I'd even be on board with allowing anyone whose been usurped to regain command at anytime but that could cause a lot of drama if the guild goes a different way while the leader is away.


Now that I look at it, I think the time should be affected by the size of the guild, in both renound and members.

Ergo: The Larger the Guild the more active the Guild Leader must be, as opposed to an across the board blanket time frame.

This sounds like a phenomenally bad idea because it combines a very rare event with a difficult to communicate set of conditions.

[Bicarbonate]

We're starting with these numbers because they are the same as the LOTRO timeline. If that turns out not to be correct for DDO, we will look at changing them. There are some other good ideas mentioned here that we'll keep in mind, but the system itself isn't likely to be revised for a few updates, at least.

when I was playing lotro,I cant remember ever even hearing about a kinship/warband being "stolen" like people are suggesting. Although I think all the "but what if nobody notices" arguments people are making would get cut off if anyone other thanthe sucessor trying to usurp got put in pending for a week &the guild MOTD got changed+locked to [playername] has invoked the usurp option & it will complete in x days y hours if [[sucessor] or an officer does not usurp first.

[Solmage]

The situation may be different than in Lotro because we're spending real money to buy the guild and to buy the airships, and not a small amount either.

As such, the only time the guild should be usurped should be by the designated 2nd in command if the main ACCOUNT does not log on to that server for 2-3 months, minimum, and the other guildies, officers or what have you, shouldn't get a shot unless you leave for 6 months. This IS real life money we're talking about!

[Glenalth]

Something to consider would be a timer reset button that the successor could use for when they don't want to have leadership pass to another.

[Phemt81]

This is real money spent, Turbine. And this would be theft.

Are you assuming your guildmates won' t give you back the leadership when you return after you have been away few months?

That's really pessimistic

[FlyingTurtle]

Pretty easy fix really.

If you're going on months of deployment, and don't trust ANYONE from your guild to give it back to you, just kick everyone. Voila, you get to keep the charter and the airship. Win.

On the other hand,

In view of all the other stuff that is broken in the game, I can't believe this nonsense is the stuff they're wasting time on. Thumbs down.

[Phemt81]

In view of all the other stuff that is broken in the game, I can't believe this nonsense is the stuff they're wasting time on. Thumbs down.

Good point. But not for people involved in unleaded guilds.

They could add the fly spell, but then the fighter will complain he can t have his monkey grip feat...

[PopeJual]

I think that this is a great idea.

I also think that the offer wall was a brilliant marketing strategy and I completely believe that a Turbine employee thoroughly reviews every ban before it is implemented.



(This is backwards day, isn't it?)

[Elyanna]

Ok to further voice my view on this. (all these statements are based on guild leader is out of game)

Members should not be able to usurp if any officer has been on within a time frame (and i'd say 55 days is too short)

Officers shouldn't be able to usurp if the successor has been on for a time frame also.

Maybe the guild leader should be able to set the time frame and change the time frames. I'd think the guild officers could come up with a valid set timetable for their guild.

To whoever said the leader should get the guild returned to them when they log back in sure... but I can see a situation where if it got to member usurp where that person could demote all officers and then start booting people. This could include officers who are active and understood that the guild leadership had decided not to usurp for a reason but said member decided to be a DBAG and take the guild for himself.

/NOT SIGNED until current active officer/successor is considered enough to stop usurp actions.

[Auran82]

I have a really really crazy idea.

How about we have more guild ranks than:
Leader
Officer
Member

Is that a really crazy idea or what. We could be the first MMO ever to come up with this idea!

[Lifeblood]

Finally, a guild with an absent leader and/or successor should now be able to usurp leadership. Here’s how it will work: If the leader has been inactive for 35 days, the successor can usurp. After 10 more days (for a total of 45,) if there is no successor or if the successor hasn’t usurped, then an officer can usurp. If after an additional 10 days (for a total of 55) no officers have usurped, then a member can usurp. Remember that, as always, these times are based on character inactivity, not account inactivity. So if you’re a leader who’s been playing an alt for 34 days, you might want to play the leader again!

-------------------------------------
/not signed
I feel that guilds should be treated like names...unless you pass the star then that guild belongs to the person that created it ..once the star is passed that person now owns the guild name..until they pass the star

since you are adding this feature.
.remember this...
life does rear its ugly head and for whatever reason if a guild leader is not present and s(he) comes back to the game they should be able to take back ownership/leadership with the click of a button.(unless they passed the star).even if the current leader does not want to give it up

[Cernunan]

I have a really really crazy idea.

How about we have more guild ranks than:
Leader
Officer
Member

Is that a really crazy idea or what. We could be the first MMO ever to come up with this idea!

Once upon a time we had this, but it seems it was so buggy they removed it quickly.
I remember when one guild had a rename for a rank, and then a number of other guilds had all their ranks renamed. The system went away very quickly, to never return.

[learst]

I admit I haven't been in this game as long as a lot of folks, but I don't really see much problem with these changes. So /signed.

I don't get the worry by most people of the whole "theft and loss of real money" by the guild leader when he's gone. Isn't the amenities is for everyone? As guild leader, maybe you (or/and your officers and probably members). A guild is more than one person, and I assume the guild leader have this thought in mind when he/she started the guild. So why the whole claim of theft?

IMO, the bigger issue of theft has been the guild chest - where new members joined and loot the whole chest. When someone post about this in the forum, most posters will respond with a "guildies should be screened/trusted blah blah". So now when this proposal is brought up, and it's between guild leaders and officers - why the whole worry? What happened to the typical "trust/screening/officers should be people you trust" retort?

I was in a guild once, that sorta died off once the leader and (presumably his friend) an officer stopped logging in and the guild got more quiet. Then after a while other officers and members started leaving, and I did too. I think it would be a good addition. The guild leader should have nominated a successor - and if not other officers can take over. When the guild leader is away, another officer can take over and pass it back to the guild leader when he/she return. Well, the officers are someone you trust, no?

I could see why no officers would not want to usurp, in sort of a respect to the AFK leader. But on the flipside, there are issues in other guilds whose leaders are AFK and the officers cannot usurp. I think for now, this is a good solution.

[Rumbaar]

I guess I'll have to kick everyone before I go on an extended/continue on an extended break.

[nerdychaz]

nevermind, it is not a zombie thread, lol.

A guild leader who is not present is not a leader. He should not expect to have a guild when he comes back. If you are leaving on an expected vacation or deployment, give your successor power. If you don't have anyone you can trust to take over in your absence, then you are not a leader.

[parvo]

I guess I'll have to kick everyone before I go on an extended/continue on an extended break.

If you don't have one single person in your guild that you can trust, might as well...

[Ungood]

So I assume Turbine will be providing full refunds for all turbine points spent creating guilds, and all turbine point spent for diamonds for guild ships to any leader who is usurped who requests it?

If not, sounds like pure, simple theft to me. Your guild dies, go join a new one, don't steal someones money.

Therefore, it sounds to me like Turbine supports theft of my money because it thinks the thing I purchased isn't being used to someone elses idea of it's potential? Tough. QUIT THE DEAD GUILD GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.


IT'S MINE, I BOUGHT IT, GO AWAY, BUY YOUR OWN.

This is real money spent, Turbine. And this would be theft.

If you want to be a guild of 1, nothing is stopping you.

And if a member of your guild pays for your Air Ship, will you be shelling out the cash to pay them back if you kick them for your guild? I didn't think so. So man up. If you walk away, someone else should have the right to take over.

[Wrendd]

yes. im assuming if you are on "military deployment" then running your guild really shouldnt be that high on your priority list.

Not everyone on deployment has access to the game. If you are stuck on some remote FOB or CO on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border then internet access is just a pipe dream. Even if you do have internet access (which I do, obviously) it is most likely not able to alow you on to DDO.

And if you are an avid DDO player then playing the game while you are on deployment might very well be high on your priority list. I can think of few things that I enjoy more than hanging out with my friends and running raids or leveling up an alt. Gamers like to game, and being in a war zone will actually make you want to play MORE than being back at home.

[Ungood]

all things said and done, leaving the guild in hands of someone that plays, is a smart idea, if you are deployed.

They should not have to usurp you, you should step down, and let someone lead the guild in your absence if you know you won't be able to play for extended periods of time.

Just saying. And I for one have more respect for our military boys to know that leader can't be 'away' or "absent' and would have the foresight, responsibility, and maturity to let the second in command take over the guild until their return.

[eris2323]

If you want to be a guild of 1, nothing is stopping you.

And if a member of your guild pays for your Air Ship, will you be shelling out the cash to pay them back if you kick them for your guild? I didn't think so. So man up. If you walk away, someone else should have the right to take over.

Yeah, just like if you walk away from your car for more than a minute, someone else should be legally allowed to take it, just any old joe schmoe who might have been near it.

That makes sense. Sure. So some poor guy gets in an accident, his parents don't know about his vast ddo empire... he can't get back on... and the thing he's spent years building suddenly is no longer his?

Get real, it's theft and you know it. If I own land, and I say hey, you know what, you can hang out, use my yard and picnic table, that's fine, and I come back in 2 months and you've taken over the whole area and built a house, and have moved in, that'd be theft too, and the law would get you off my land right quick.

Theft.

That's all it is. Theft. Atlas Shrugged Levels of Theft.

Sugarcoat it all you want, but someone paid to own a guild, and taking it is theft.

Perhaps if there were several emails sent, a phone call, and with enough notice, and about 6-8 months lag time, I could get behind the idea. But I see no mention of that. Just bang, log back in, that's great, you can walk again... oh hahahahah some 12 year old stole your guild and you're out all your money and hard work and no, they like it now and kicked you out of your own guild.

Theft.

Can't believe Turbine wasted time developing this.

If turbine wants me to keep paying real money they better stop trying to make it so people in game can steal it.

[Flavilandile]

Not signed, definitely.

Any guild leader should be able to take more than a 35 days vacation...

Typical example : guild leader changes job and needs to move to another place.
It can take more than 35 days from him/her to get back his net ( DSL/Cable/whatever ) connection...
[ in some case it can even take more than 60 days ]

And in the meantime any guild member could usurp his leadership...

At least, to reduce the risks, limit that to the officers and put the time limit over one month for the successor and 3 month for the officers....

And if you fixed the guild ranking we could add more ranks between leader and officers and officers and members
that could make this whole usurpation thingie more palatable.

Example of an hypothetical guild with 8 ranks :

Leader
Successor ( can usurp Leader after 30 days )
Ancient ( can usurp Leader after 45 days )
Elder ( Can usurp Leader after 60 days )
Officer ( Can usurp Leader after 90 days )
Initiate ( can usurp Leader after 120 days )
NCO ( for lack of a better term, can usurp Leader after 180 days )
Member ( cannot usurp Leader )

This would work for a big guild, with the ranking system a small guild will be able to stick to the 4 basic ranks :

Leader
Successor ( can usurp Leader after 30 days )
Officer ( Can usurp Leader after 90 days )
Member ( cannot usurp Leader )

Seriously any guild created for other reasons that ship buff will have enough officers and will have a named successor that such usurpation system will not be needed.

[cardmj1]

I just don't think anyone except the successor should be given the ability to usurp. Guild Leaders choose their second in command for a reason, trust. There is an explicit trust between the Leader and their 2nd about the guild, their focus, their members, and their loyalty. As long as the 2nd is longing in, the right to Usurp should never be allowed by anyone else. If such a time (say 180 days) that neither the Guild Leader or the Successor has not logged in, then only officers should be able to Usurp the leadership. That's it.

[bryanmeerkat]

So if you have to leave the game for over a month, due to a military deployment or whatever, then you should just expect that control of your guild will be stripped from you regardless of your wishes?

Maybe pass the leadership to a trusted guildie while you are away ?

If you dont have anyone in your guild that you could trust to give the leadership to in your absence maybe when you get back you could start again and create a real guild ?

[cardmj1]

Maybe pass the leadership to a trusted guildie while you are away ?

If you dont have anyone in your guild that you could trust to give the leadership to in your absence maybe when you get back you could start again and create a real guild ?

And it's obvious you have never ran a guild of worth or you would understand why people are very upset by this. Some of our guilds are coming up on 5 years old.

[bryanmeerkat]

And it's obvious you have never ran a guild of worth or you would understand why people are very upset by this. Some of our guilds are coming up on 5 years old.

People are getting upset about this as its a nice dramaqueen thing to do . Stop . Think . React .

You have to leave for a month .
You are a leader of a guild .
Pass leadership to someone you trust , maybe you have played with them for 5 years .
When you return reclaim leadership from trusted ally .

Oh no'es problem gone away

If there isnt anyone you trust in your guild to not screw you over then maybe that guild of oh so long really isnt that great at all .

What this does do though is protect those people in these 5 year old guilds .
What would hapen to them if the leader disappeared from the game without explanation and only one other person was able to ever deal with that .
What if it was a couple or IRL friends who both decided to ditch the game ?

These are real issues that would damage a group of players far more than realising they where in a guild of such ******s that they cant safely pass leadership to anyone in the group on a temporary basis .



(neg rep button is over there >>> if your one of the dramaqueens whos feelings this hurts )

[Draugkir]

so.. in the event of a nuclear blast does this mean that people playing on the orbital space stations as members might actually get to guild leadership?

/not signed

[Alintalkin]

The way I see it if you don't trust even your successor to pass leadership back to you, you should not have made or be in your guild.

If you cannot trust your officers you haven't promoted them in the first place.

If after 55 days not one of your trusted officers or yourself logged on the guild has a large chance of dying. This gives a chance for it to survive.

Hopefully you weren't just inviting any person who wanted to join the guild and you had a chance to judge their personality. That way you have a chance of even members reinstating you as guild leader when you return.

If you do not have guildies you trust what is the point of being in a guild?

[parvo]

And it's obvious you have never ran a guild of worth or you would understand why people are very upset by this. Some of our guilds are coming up on 5 years old.

I run a guild that has taken a lot of energy and cooperation for over three years, yet I agree. Should I, for whatever reason, not log on for over a month, the star should pass to a trusted guildie. Obviously you've never been a member of a guild of worth that the leader quit or you would understand why this should have been implemented five years ago.

[Eladiun]

The concept is great. The numbers need to be doubled. The reality is a guild belongs to the members not a single individual all their effort needs to be protected.

[atkbeast]

While I agree there should be the ability to usurp leadership, I think the times that are being suggested for the update are way too short.

I have a guild on Thelanis started by a friend and me for when we needed to get away from our regular guild on Khyber. Passing the leadership to me was not an option because he passed away suddenly of a heart attack last May. Unfortunately, we each had only 1 toon as officers with me being the successor. This is an extreme case of why a leader would not log on, it shows it can happen.

I think 60 days would be good for the successor to usurp, 120 days without either the leader or successor for an officer and 180 days for a member to usurp without an officer logged on. Not many members would stay that long with an inactive leadership and any that do I think we could agree are dedicated to the guild.

[Spiderwight]

Wouldn't it make a great deal more sense if it worked like this:
After, say, 30 days of the leader being inactive, the successor can usurp.
After, say, 60 days of the leader and successor being inactive, any officer can usurp.
After, say, 90 days of leader, successor and all officers being inactive, any member can usurp.

My guild leader doesn't play that often any more, and that's fine by us - it's his guild. I'd prefer to just carry on, with the guild leader in charge, in absentia until he gets back. There's no problem so long as there's always someone who *could* take the leadership if everyone above them leaves the game.

There are a couple of people in my guild I don't really know or trust. (Other members brought them in, and I'm happy to have them in the guild, but I don't necessarily trust them not to usurp for giggles if they got a shot at it.) With the proposed system, if I (as successor) get into a position to usurp, I therefore pretty much have to, or in twenty more days any of them could take over.

[shores11]

The first question I need to know is why does the usurp function need to exist at all.

If a person wants to form a guild what right does any potential members regardless of his/her rank in guild have to take it away from them? None…

If my guild leader went dormant or was not what I wanted I simple left the guild and joined another or formed my own.

If an usurp function had to exist at all why not allow the guild leader and or his officers to make the appropriate timeline.

Example: In our guild we have established a 4 month culling policy for all members. This works for us.

[Madryoch]

Well the reason would be simple ... u own the name of the guild right? Oki then what about all the guild experience that it has accumulated? are they also UR effort alone ? Or as someone stated before ... if someone buys the guild ship for the guild and u decide to kick him/her do u refund their Turbine Points?

Are u a control freak or what? If ur guild is a serious issue to u u should at the very least have people u trust in it who will be in the appropriate ranks so they can usurp when the time comes and return the leadership to u when u return ... COngratulations on trying to be a Drama Queen ... U convinced me that the role suits u 100%.

Oh and for everyone who will say it's my guild and all before posting i ask u to imagine the following ... A lvl 65 guild's leader after playing for long decides to take a break from the game for 2-3 months for example ... Should the rest leave the guild and start over from lvl 1? Loose all their buffs and all their items that require the appropriate guild lvl for the slots they have? And yes there are people like me who use such items on end game characters like my intimitank with medium augment slot on armor for +3 intimidate ....

The only objection of mine would be the fact that any member can usurp aat some point if time passes ... I am no officer in my guild but imo only officers should be able to do so ... If officers,vice GM and GM are all away for that long then the guild is pretty much dead ... So it's doomed to die and thus that function is not useful.

[Hambo]

/NOT signed

If I want to take a break from a TOON, I should be able to.
... So make the Alt you want to play an officer, then the successor, and resign, making the successor the new leader. Or, log in once a week and check inventory for 30 seconds. :D
If I want to take a break from an ACCOUNT, I should be able to.
... See above.

If I go back in the hospital and can't log on at all for another month, I should be able to log back on and STILL BE LEADER OF MY GUILD.
... Valid point.


Responses in RED.

[Ungood]

....

What a whine fest, but the truth is, you never owned it begin with. Read the manual next time.

[Ungood]

The way I see it if you don't trust even your successor to pass leadership back to you, you should not have made or be in your guild.

If you cannot trust your officers you haven't promoted them in the first place.

If after 55 days not one of your trusted officers or yourself logged on the guild has a large chance of dying. This gives a chance for it to survive.

Hopefully you weren't just inviting any person who wanted to join the guild and you had a chance to judge their personality. That way you have a chance of even members reinstating you as guild leader when you return.

If you do not have guildies you trust what is the point of being in a guild?


The concept is great. The numbers need to be doubled. The reality is a guild belongs to the members not a single individual all their effort needs to be protected.

Well said!

[Hambo]

Are you assuming your guildmates won' t give you back the leadership when you return after you have been away few months?

That's really pessimistic

Supose the Usurper was a member recruited after you left? Would they be as understanding as the people you actually played with?

[Phemt81]

EDIT: my bad :D


Get real, it's theft and you know it. If I own land, and I say hey, you know what, you can hang out, use my yard and picnic table, that's fine, and I come back in 2 months and you've taken over the whole area and built a house, and have moved in, that'd be theft too, and the law would get you off my land right quick.
Theft.
That's all it is. Theft. Atlas Shrugged Levels of Theft.
Sugarcoat it all you want, but someone paid to own a guild, and taking it is theft.
Perhaps if there were several emails sent, a phone call, and with enough notice, and about 6-8 months lag time, I could get behind the idea. But I see no mention of that. Just bang, log back in, that's great, you can walk again... oh hahahahah some 12 year old stole your guild and you're out all your money and hard work and no, they like it now and kicked you out of your own guild.
Theft.

I bet you never play rogues :D


Supose the Usurper was a member recruited after you left? Would they be as understanding as the people you actually played with?

I, as an unleading leader, should only say Thanks to all people contributing to my guild while i was away, especially to the person who cared to take leadership to adjust the needed settings to keep it grow.

Then i would ask for my leadership back explaining why i was away and why it won' t hapen again and i' ll have back what is of OURS property

[Elyanna]

I love how two long standing guild leaders on Khyber get harassed for being vocal about something they have worked very hard for 5 years to achieve that now because of some unforseen circumstance could end up getting taken away from them by someone they trust to be member but don't feel quite fit their Officer qualities.

Rain and Hordo... BRAVO on your time as leaders of two guilds that have stood the time they have for a reason. Anyone who believes any of your officers would usurp the guild from you really needs a reality check.

This is why I am whole heartly against any MEMBER's right to usurp a guild that has active officers. Long standing guilds have an identity. They have a character to them that you know when you see that tag you know that is you have any issue with a member it will get cleared up.

As for Hordo's end of his post. I totally agree also. The basic plan for this process can't have had a long thought put to it. I have 36 characters. I never know which I will be playing on any given day. I know when I was leader of a guild the character I had as leader did spend at least 30 days maybe 45 days inactive. But that account was active almost every day. So you are that I wasn't leading my guild... BULL I was leading by playing characters my guild need me to run while they all were leveling clerics. Stuff happens and you don't log a character in for a while. Guild leadership should not change due to inactivity of one character of the guild leader. My successor and officers never would have usurped because I was still playing and keeping things rolling. Now if I had continued this for another 15 days or so any member could have got a hair up their backside and taken the guild leadership role even though I was still active and doing what the guild needed me to do. I call BS on anyone who thinks that would have been a good situation.

[IronClan]

It's not Drama, it's that 95% of the player base doesn't read the forums... Some of them are going to get blind sided a few weeks after this update and find their $200 Typhoon is now owned by Pimply McNewperson the newest addition to the officer core, who was more than willing to help himself when the other 6 or 7 officers didn't click usurp because they were being loyal to you. All because the leader didn't log in a toon that hasn't been played since the level cap was 10 and con was a dump stat.

Some are going to get blind sided when they forget to log in their leader toon every month just to reset the timer (Yeah Tell me you've never paid a bill late and then tell me how "SIMPLE" it is to make sure you log in), on a toon you might never play. Some are going to get blind sided when any combination of vaction/unexpected absence/unplanned deployment/real life hardship and/or not remembering to log in their toon combines to create an absence of slightly over a month.

Astral Diamonds cost roughly $25 per 100, that's $50 dollars for the cheapest full featured ship (assuming you want your members to have the good ships) the charter costs a buck fifty for non VIP's, and because of the "rigged" way they made amenities you might need to pay up to $3 dollars per week per amenity for some of them, until you level the guild a little more and can use the plat versions that don't cost TP.

So assuming you're a somewhat motivated leader who wants to outfit the guild with good things and access nice stuff without waiting for 5 more levels etc. You could easily be into your guild for a couple hundred bucks. Up to several hundred...

And all it takes is one unscrupulous officer who's willing to click the usurp button when you forget to log in one of your characters (that you maybe never play any more). Or spend a couple weeks in the hospital after not logging that character in for a couple weeks, or go on vacation for a couple weeks after not having logged that character in for a couple...

This system would be fine if:
The time frame wasn't so ludicrously small (seriously 35 days??? do the Devs have personal lives?)
There were "safe guards" (such as automatically reinstating the original leader when he gets back and logs in and clicks the big "Oh while you were away --- now would you like your guild back Yes/No" dialog.
There were safe guards against PLANNED or KNOWN absences (Deployment, Sickness, Vacation)
And Finally there was a VOTE system that elects the officer/member with the most votes. Instead of "whoever clicks the Usurp button first is king of the hill and gets $200 dollars worth of my stuff forever"

This isn't about drama just good common sense, and Turbine not taking the easy way out by making the system so rudimentary and bare bones, that it seems like a "quick and dirty" that will lead to more problems than the rare problem it's intended to fix...

When all is said and done I would be shocked if this system doesn't result in as many (or more) unwanted takovers by officers who were the first to notice the usurp button, as it saves from "abandoned" leaders.

[stainer]

Maybe there can be an opt out option at guild creation, or can be toggled at the guild leaders discretion?

[shores11]

We're starting with these numbers because they are the same as the LOTRO timeline. If that turns out not to be correct for DDO, we will look at changing them. There are some other good ideas mentioned here that we'll keep in mind, but the system itself isn't likely to be revised for a few updates, at least.

Questions:

Turbine is instituting this into the game, why? Was there some over whelming majority of players in DDO that demanding change like this?

That highlighted statement you made above. I suppose ultimately its your game not the players and you can just insititute whatever you choose dispite player feedback.

(Hmmmm, sounds familiar when someone pushed through some recent policy that 72% of the people said they didn't want)

If players are disgruntled with a guild for any reason it is so simple to just move on to another guild or create your own. This entire policy or measure that is being put into place is majorly upsetting.

[Ungood]

Supose the Usurper was a member recruited after you left? Would they be as understanding as the people you actually played with?

First off, the Successor has first dibs on taking over the guild. If you didn't pass the torch on to them when you need to a leave, they should take it, when they realize you are inactive.

Secondly: ALL the officers get dibs on the leadership, (and only the leader can make officers) that means that not a single officer would take the reins after you left to take over the guild. Even if no other reason, then to keep the control within the trusted hierarchy. This would include the officer that invited the member your so worried about taking over the guild.

[Thalmor]

I could have sworn that with a recent update renown was attached to characters now. So if a character leaves, he takes his renown (that he's accumulated since said update) with him now...

Dogan
The obvious answer is, leave & reform under new leadership.

Recently this is what I did as no one else in the guild had been logged for over 2 months, So I took my Characters and formed a guild with a few friends who poly the game.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Hey here's a suggestion, why not give guild leaders the ability to set the timelines for their guild. Default them as per Turbine's rules, then allow them to be changed by a simiple click and then displayed in the guild header, similar to MoTD. That means guild leaders can set up guilds as they wish and guild officers and members can see what they have gotten themselves into.

[shores11]

Hey here's a suggestion, why not give guild leaders the ability to set the timelines for their guild. Default them as per Turbine's rules, then allow them to be changed by a simiple click and then displayed in the guild header, similar to MoTD. That means guild leaders can set up guilds as they wish and guild officers and members can see what they have gotten themselves into.

If it has to be then I very much like your suggestion.

[Ungood]

I love how two long standing guild leaders on Khyber get harassed for being vocal about something they have worked very hard for 5 years to achieve that now because of some unforseen circumstance could end up getting taken away from them by someone they trust to be member but don't feel quite fit their Officer qualities.

If they worked 5 years to build something? hardly, the entire guild worked hard, every member contributed. Guilds are not a private corporation, they are like a public company, everyone own's stock.

So, if they worked hard to get what they want, 5 min or less to talk with their successor and officers would prevent anything from happening, they know it, we know it, pretty much, everyone knows it.

Also, if your Leader is some 10the level con dump stat toon that has not been played in 3 years. Maybe now is the time to upgrade who is really leading the guild.

[Hambo]

Not signed, definitely.

Any guild leader should be able to take more than a 35 days vacation...

Typical example : guild leader changes job and needs to move to another place.
It can take more than 35 days from him/her to get back his net ( DSL/Cable/whatever ) connection...
[ in some case it can even take more than 60 days ]

And in the meantime any guild member could usurp his leadership...

At least, to reduce the risks, limit that to the officers and put the time limit over one month for the successor and 3 month for the officers....

And if you fixed the guild ranking we could add more ranks between leader and officers and officers and members
that could make this whole usurpation thingie more palatable.

Example of an hypothetical guild with 8 ranks :

Leader
Successor ( can usurp Leader after 30 days )
Ancient ( can usurp Leader after 45 days )
Elder ( Can usurp Leader after 60 days )
Officer ( Can usurp Leader after 90 days )
Initiate ( can usurp Leader after 120 days )
NCO ( for lack of a better term, can usurp Leader after 180 days )
Member ( cannot usurp Leader )

This would work for a big guild, with the ranking system a small guild will be able to stick to the 4 basic ranks :

Leader
Successor ( can usurp Leader after 30 days )
Officer ( Can usurp Leader after 90 days )
Member ( cannot usurp Leader )

Seriously any guild created for other reasons that ship buff will have enough officers and will have a named successor that such usurpation system will not be needed.

I like the four rank model above, but would make a few changes:



Definitions:

Usurp: Post notice of intent (by clicking button on guild screen):
Successful if target is still inactive and not vetoed by Leader within
(timeframe to be determined). Causes temporary MOTD overwrite.
Sends forum message (RL email?) to Leader & Successor.

X: The number of days of Leader inactivity before Successor can initiate
usurption

Y: The number of days of Successor inactivity before Officer can initiate
usurption

Leader: Promotes Officer to Successor; Member to Officer; Recruits Member;
Can demote all; Remove Member from Guild; Veto Successor usurption if active

Successor: Usurp Leader after X days of inactivity; Promotes Member to Officer;
Recruits Member; Remove Member from Guild

Officer: Usurp Successor after Y days of inactivity; Leader can veto if active;
Recruit Member

Member: Cannot usurp Leader; Can be removed from Guild

[Ungood]

Hey here's a suggestion, why not give guild leaders the ability to set the timelines for their guild. Default them as per Turbine's rules, then allow them to be changed by a simiple click and then displayed in the guild header, similar to MoTD. That means guild leaders can set up guilds as they wish and guild officers and members can see what they have gotten themselves into.

You know what might be a good idea, have a third option, say, after 35 days, the Successor can take over the guild, or re-establish the current guild leader as the active leader, IE: a Keep Loyal Option.

This, if no one keeps loyal to the Guild leader, THEN anyone can take over.

[Phemt81]

and because of the "rigged" way they made amenities you might need to pay up to $3 dollars per week per amenity for some of them

This system would be fine if:
The time frame wasn't so ludicrously small (seriously 35 days??? do the Devs have personal lives?)


Yeah you can spend 3$ per week but can' t log in ONE TIME for 35 days, awesome point! :D

Logic for the win here

[Hambo]

so.. in the event of a nuclear blast does this mean that people playing on the orbital space stations as members might actually get to guild leadership?

/not signed

...Particularly since after the fallout hits I'll be able to use my right hand for my mouse and all 22 fingers on the other two hands to be Mr. Uber-Keyboard? :D

[IronClan]

Yeah you can spend 3$ per week but can' t log in ONE TIME for 35 days, awesome point! :D

Logic for the win here

And reading comprehension (a couple of you need to re-read, it's not ACCOUNT based... you can log in every single day and still forget to log the "leader character" and lose your guild) :) as well as the assumption that EVERYONE else has no life and could never conceivably spend 35 days away from the game planned or not...

I'm not good with either of those assumptions. I'm not good with "whoever hits the usurp button first is king of the hill he didn't pay for".

[stainer]

http://my.ddo.com/codeshaper/2011/01/31/the-shape-of-the-code-silence/

Post #25
It seems there’s a low awareness to this, so I’ll mention it here: please note if you’re in a guild currently that it was already possible for your guild to be usurped by the successor after 2 weeks of inactivity by the leader. There are some cases where there was some broken functionality for the successor. -Tolero

[Elyanna]

Did you hide anything of value in this post of hackneyed assumptions and Ad-hominem attacks?

My point for those who need it in short concise words:

RESPECT AND TRADITION!

Two things that seem to fall on deaf ears anymore in this god forsaken world.

[Ungood]

The end result is, honestly, if you need to take time away for whatever reason, say a few months, you SHOULD appoint someone else who is more active then you to run the guild. That is common sense.

[Tolero]

http://my.ddo.com/codeshaper/2011/01/31/the-shape-of-the-code-silence/

Post #25
It seems there’s a low awareness to this, so I’ll mention it here: please note if you’re in a guild currently that it was already possible for your guild to be usurped by the successor after 2 weeks of inactivity by the leader. There are some cases where there was some broken functionality for the successor. -Tolero

Correct. That functionality has been in the game since launch (though at some point recently it had some flaky behavior preventing it from working for the successor in a few cases).

Post script: Now that I think about it, it may not have been with initial launch, but it's been there for as long as I can remember, and I joined the game in 06.

[Elyanna]

The end result is, honestly, if you need to take time away for whatever reason, say a few months, you SHOULD appoint someone else who is more active then you to run the guild. That is common sense.

In some guilds this isn't needed since the other officers will do what needs to be done until the leader returns. It's BS that we will now be forced to do something that shouldn't need to be done because one idiot in the guild could do something that every officer understands doesn't need to be done due to a chain of command working properly.

[Hordo]

Correct. That functionality has been in the game since launch (though at some point recently it had some flaky behavior preventing it from working for the successor in a few cases).

Post script: Now that I think about it, it may not have been with initial launch, but it's been there for as long as I can remember, and I joined the game in 06.

FYI, Tolero, it was there since launch...we had a problem in a pre-Loreseekers guild coming from Open Beta.

[stainer]

Correct. That functionality has been in the game since launch (though at some point recently it had some flaky behavior preventing it from working for the successor in a few cases).

Post script: Now that I think about it, it may not have been with initial launch, but it's been there for as long as I can remember, and I joined the game in 06.

I think they are ignoring us.

[Phemt81]

The end result is, honestly, if you need to take time away for whatever reason, say a few months, you SHOULD appoint someone else who is more active then you to run the guild. That is common sense.

THIS makes sense to me. Not the baby attitude "IT S MINE YOU THEFT IT S ALL MIIIIINE" hey calm down, i ll give it back to you, can you understand me? :D



it was already possible for your guild to be usurped by the successor after 2 weeks of inactivity by the leader.
Correct. That functionality has been in the game since launch (though at some point recently it had some flaky behavior preventing it from working for the successor in a few cases).
Post script: Now that I think about it, it may not have been with initial launch, but it's been there for as long as I can remember, and I joined the game in 06.

LOL, and they complain about 35 days... Thanks Stainer and Tolero :)

[stainer]

LOL, and they complain about 35 days... Thanks Stainer and Tolero :)

There goes all my street cred.

[Hordo]

The end result is, honestly, if you need to take time away for whatever reason, say a few months, you SHOULD appoint someone else who is more active then you to run the guild. That is common sense.

I'll remember that when I have another heart attack. "Don't call 9-1-1, call my guildies!" :rolleyes:


In some guilds this isn't needed since the other officers will do what needs to be done until the leader returns. It's BS that we will now be forced to do something that shouldn't need to be done because one idiot in the guild could do something that every officer understands doesn't need to be done due to a chain of command working properly.

Exactly. In some guilds respect is something that has been earned over the years making such a necessity as usurping the guild in order to keep it from accidentally passing into the hands of the general membership ridiculous.

[Ungood]

And reading comprehension (a couple of you need to re-read, it's not ACCOUNT based... you can log in every single day and still forget to log the "leader character" and lose your guild) :) as well as the assumption that EVERYONE else has no life and could never conceivably spend 35 days away from the game planned or not...

I'm not good with either of those assumptions. I'm not good with "whoever hits the usurp button first is king of the hill he didn't pay for".

This is a good point, and brings to light that now is a good time to consider who you left in "Charge" of your guild. The leader should be an active person, at least, one might say, when you check "Last on" the leader should be someone who has been on, say, this month.

Maybe it's time to dust off that "Guild Leader" and make them a bank mule, if they are going to take up a slot, you might as well use them.

[Elyanna]

THIS makes sense to me. Not the baby attitude "IT S MINE YOU THEFT IT S ALL MIIIIINE" hey calm down, i ll give it back to you, can you understand me? :D



LOL, and they complain about 35 days... Thanks Stainer and Tolero :)

I am not complaining about the idea of a successor being able to take the guild. I am complaining about a member being able to do it in a guild that I know neither the successor or an officer would do it without extreme circumstances. But I can almost say 100% that there would be a member or two that could do it and it probably wouldn't be a good thing.

[stainer]

Maybe it's time to dust off that "Guild Leader" and make them a bank mule, if they are going to take up a slot, you might as well use them.

You must only have 2 characters.

[Chai]

I think the system should be made to keep track of everyone at the account level and not the character level. The person leads the guild, not the toon.

That being said, I do not favor an absolute sulotion to an issue hardly anyone agrees on. This solution likely works well for raid guilds and such but doesnt work as well for casual gamers, permadeathers, and the like. If someone doesnt play a character for three weeks, which is common in a PD guild even though they are logged in on other toons during that time, then they go on drill for two weeks, they can come back and have their guild ganked. /facepalm

And dont give me this whole "you should have planned for this" BS, because this isnt true for all situations. I have played with 2 larger guilds in the past who were mostly millitarty or service personel. Just about everyone in the guild had an officer status toon. It was understood that people would have extended AFKs at times, period. ZOMG I better log all my toons on once before I leave, just to make sure. /barf.

Account level and not character level monitoring for guilds please.

[Calebro]

I hevn't read all of this thread, but:
Why not allow the Leader to choose from a variable set of usurping options?

Option A: successor-30, officer-45, member-60
Option B: successor-45, officer-60, member-90
Option C: successor-60, officer-90, member-120
Option D: successor-30, officer-45, member-never
etc, etc, etc

Choosing how the guild will be run upon the loss of it's leader should be handled on the guild level, not on the dev level.

[Tolero]

Just so we're all aware, the Cube is watching this thread, so it's best to put aside the name calling and personal attacks.

The design was based around character inactivity because a user could "ditch" their guild and while still having an "active account" by playing the game with another character, even though they have no intent of ever returning to said guild they abandoned.

[PopeJual]

I see, now the drama-queen antics start, was wondering what the others were talking about. A heart attack? Cute, I see the military and getting arrested lines were running out.


You say that as if people don't regularly have heart attacks. It happens and most of the time people come back from it mostly okay-ish. It does take some time out of you schedule, though...

I don't see anyone complaining about the idea that a successor can/should take over if something happens to a guild's leader.

I do see people correctly complaining that this "fix" will REQUIRE a successor or officer to usurp if the guild leader is afk for a month in order to keep the guild from potentially falling into the wrong hands. I like everyone in my guild that I know*. That doesn't mean that I want everyone in the guild to have the ability to take the guild away from the guild leader.


*I'm not on 24/7, so there are a fair number of guildies that I really don't know - just because we end up playing at different times.

[Chai]

In some guilds this isn't needed since the other officers will do what needs to be done until the leader returns. It's BS that we will now be forced to do something that shouldn't need to be done because one idiot in the guild could do something that every officer understands doesn't need to be done due to a chain of command working properly.

Yeap, exactly.

If the second in command and officers dont grab control during their window, your 4 year old guild might be in the hands of someone who joined a few weeks ago. All because of the fact that everyone knew the leader was deployed, and the 2nd + officers could easily manage the guild when they were away.

I for one welcome our newly invited member overlords.

[Hordo]

I am not complaining about the idea of a successor being able to take the guild. I am complaining about a member being able to do it in a guild that I know neither the successor or an officer would do it without extreme circumstances. But I can almost say 100% that there would be a member or two that could do it and it probably wouldn't be a good thing.

DING DING DING

I have required the use of the successor usurpation on a few occasions, once for account problems, twice for heart attacks...worked just great, and I was able to get the guild back no problems.

So those who even think that is a possible problem are off the mark, it is short time span in order for a member to become eligible for usurpation that is the key problem.

[DakFrost]

Wish this would have been changes awhile ago...I wouldn't have had to leave my old guild.

[Calebro]

Wish this would have been changes awhile ago...I wouldn't have had to leave my old guild.

No you wouldn't have had to leave, because you would have been the leader all of a sudden and without warning your members. :eek:

[Hordo]

Just so we're all aware, the Cube is watching this thread, so it's best to put aside the name calling and personal attacks.

The design was based around character inactivity because a user could "ditch" their guild and while still having an "active account" by playing the game with another character, even though they have no intent of ever returning to said guild they abandoned.

Tolero, that is all well and good, but the original-since-launch mechanic opening it up for the successor after two weeks (and, yes, it did take 30 days the first time it happened to me due to the account payment problem) worked just fine. And if Turbine does change it, why open it up to members, some of whom may be just in the guild, to be able to click the button if the officers have chosen, out of respect of the guild leader, not to do so in the first place?

[Lifeblood]

Just so we're all aware, the Cube is watching this thread, so it's best to put aside the name calling and personal attacks.

The design was based around character inactivity because a user could "ditch" their guild and while still having an "active account" by playing the game with another character, even though they have no intent of ever returning to said guild they abandoned.


/waves to the cube...here have a newblet to snack on

Tolero: While I do believe yours/Turbines intentions are good. I along with more than a few others think the way you are doing it is off base..

I know how frustrating it can be to be in a guild that does not have an active leader..I was in one we tried for months to get him to pass the star and he refused....our only recourse was to leave and form a new guild.....we were stronger for it

at the very least make it so guilds of a certian size must have a succesor and let them have the option to take/reset the leadership spot or not after a set time

[MrLarone]

Just so we're all aware, the Cube is watching this thread, so it's best to put aside the name calling and personal attacks.


CUBE! CUBE! CUBE! ...

As i don't believe it's been mentioned (and apologies if it has) when is this change coming in?

i'm currently an officer in 16 man guild (2 other toons being me (and officers too)) and the only person to be regularly on. i haven't checked recently but i believe that we're at the stage where long enough has passed that a member could usurp were this mechanism in place today.

when this change does come in, i hope timers start from that date, clarification please.

also while i'm pleased that i might be able to get the guild moving again, i disagree that a member should ever be able to usurp. usurp should always be those the leader has chosen, either as a second or officer. whilst members could've been added by the leader they could also have been added by and officer after the leader went away...

that's the only rub i have with this.

[Arzoah]

Wouldn't it be wiser to start with a LONGER timeline? You can't exactly give a guild back to someone after bad usurps.

I agree with Lorien. I'm a little new, but I've inquired with my guild and this seems to make sense. Our Leader has long absences but our Successor knows what's going on with him. If a standard new recruit could take over our guild, we'd be hesitant on even recruiting new members.

Infact, a New Recruit (lower than standard member) rank in a guild should be created if this option is implemented to prevent a random new person from taking over a guild's hard work over the last year or two or three years as time progresses. The issue is very pressing and blatantly obvious. Did not anyone consider how a perfect storm scenario could hurt a very prominant guild? I don't need to explain myself but I heard one individual bribed their way into a guild and then disbanded it on my server (Argonnessen). This doesn't seem like much, but I also was told the guild was filled with hundreds of players! Imagine if this happened to a level 80 guild? Also, there are rumors that guild levels are being sold to the highest bidder across the servers now -- another added incentive for someone without virtue to profit on someone else's hard work.

I was looking at the times proposed for a standard member to take over the guild leadership... It definitely seems too quick. It also seems more eggregious the larger the guild's total level, so I propose the following guidance (with modification as required):

An Alternate Succession Table based on Guild Level:

Successor: Take guild over at .35 days * Guild Level.
Officers: Take guild over at .7 days * Guild Level + 2 weeks.
Members: Take guild over at 1 day * Guild Level + 2 weeks. (Highest level guilds where this matters most take longest to be taken over by a standard member)

Optional * New Recruits: Never (a new entry level for players that have not yet earned their stripes -- their total renown should count for less to the guild level. Perhaps .3*renown or .5*renown)

[Chai]

Just so we're all aware, the Cube is watching this thread, so it's best to put aside the name calling and personal attacks.

The design was based around character inactivity because a user could "ditch" their guild and while still having an "active account" by playing the game with another character, even though they have no intent of ever returning to said guild they abandoned.

So then the system should monitor their toons in the same guild for log on purposes instead of character only.

I still dont like members being able to take control. Its highly unlikely that the leader, all officers, and the second in command are all playing non guilded alts at the same time, and if they are, its time for the other members to start their own guild.

It is likely that those individuals could all be overseas in the sandbox for 90 days however....and come back to find someone they never met in control of the entire guild and all of its progress, simply because an officer didnt feel it was necessary to take control during their window due to the level of trust built up between guildies who have played together for a while. But when that window expires, the first lucky member to take control now owns the guild.

Thats like being a private first class one day and being a general the next day. Forget all that messy career path stuff in between, yall take orders from me now!! /pins the pips on.

[Schmoe]

Tolero, that is all well and good, but the original-since-launch mechanic opening it up for the successor after two weeks (and, yes, it did take 30 days the first time it happened to me due to the account payment problem) worked just fine. And if Turbine does change it, why open it up to members, some of whom may be just in the guild, to be able to click the button if the officers have chosen, out of respect of the guild leader, not to do so in the first place?

This sums it up best for me. Why change a mechanic that was already working? Why FORCE a usurpation?

[FlyingTurtle]

I think the consensus here is the "keep-warm" option is best.

Keep-warm: if you have the option to usurp, instead of usurping you can instead reset the usurpation timer to another 30 days (or whatever).

Difference between "keep warm" and "usurp" is that for "keep-warm", when anyone of strictly higher standing logs in they can keep warm or usurp without getting permission from the usurper.

It's a huge difference, and it's the best of both worlds.

Do that and most everyone will be happy.

The only thing it doesn't solve is the problem where all officers get simultaneously deployed (not impossible, they may be in the same unit). That can be solved by never allowing ordinary members to usurp, which is another good idea.

[GoldyGopher]

Codeshaper has posted some bug fixes at http://my.ddo.com/codeshaper/2011/01/31/the-shape-of-the-code-silence/ including

Finally, a guild with an absent leader and/or successor should now be able to usurp leadership. Here’s how it will work: If the leader has been inactive for 35 days, the successor can usurp. After 10 more days (for a total of 45,) if there is no successor or if the successor hasn’t usurped, then an officer can usurp. If after an additional 10 days (for a total of 55) no officers have usurped, then a member can usurp. Remember that, as always, these times are based on character inactivity, not account inactivity. So if you’re a leader who’s been playing an alt for 34 days, you might want to play the leader again!

Without too much Drama I think the amount of time listed here CAN cause some issues, not that it will but it now creates more of an issue.
Players with toons as leaders of old Guilds that go back to launch don't always play that toon. While not everyone is in a five (ten) year old guild it could really be an issue for those of us that are. All it takes is one bad apple to make everyones life miserable.

My Suggestions would be:
If the Guild Leader has been inactive for 20 days might I suggest either an Email or In Game mail to all of the Leaders toons. I think an Email is best, but that might rely on technology not available.
After 30 days of inactivity an Email (or in game mail) should be sent to the leader and the successor.
And so on and so forth.

While I understand linking the character rather to the toon, how about linking to all of the guild leaders characters in the guild and not the account? Of course much more difficult, but...

I also think there should be a method for the Successor and or the Officers to block usurp of those below them without them actually usurping the guild. Yeah we know that our Guild Leader is involved in some Personal Issues (Month Long Safari in Africa) or Real Life crisis, give us the oppertunity to say yeah we know.

Turbine neeeds to clearly define what they will do if a guild is usurped.

While this technology has been in game since launch it hasn't alwasy worked properly.

[Lifeblood]

This sums it up best for me. Why change a mechanic that was already working? Why FORCE a usurpation?

i think that part of that issue was leaders are/were not selecting a second in command and by not having a second in command could bypass the usurpation option

[stainer]

Turbine people that are reading this thread.

This is starting to sound like the offer wall.

love,

stainer

[Arzoah]

This is the underlyinig problem.

Officership is a privilleged position and these are the players that should be enabled to take a guild over within the timeframe proposed. Any good leader will only promote officers that they trust and can rely on to carry the guild on without them.

Standard Members should only be able to take over a guild if no officer can after a good lengthy period.

And there should be a trial position or New Recruit position that should *never* be able to take over a guild, but that's another issue. At least correct the timeline for this mechanism first with the existing roles in a guild.


DING DING DING

I have required the use of the successor usurpation on a few occasions, once for account problems, twice for heart attacks...worked just great, and I was able to get the guild back no problems.

So those who even think that is a possible problem are off the mark, it is short time span in order for a member to become eligible for usurpation that is the key problem.

[Skirmish]

The only reason several of my old guilds fell apart was because the leader left the game with little to no notice and never handed over the reins to anyone else. Thus, we were left unable to promote anyone who joined after they left. Which was followed by several officers leaving for one reason or another. So all that was one officer, maybe, and a bunch of members that couldn't recruit/do anything with the guild.

In fact, one of them was formed and fell because of that simple reason. The leader left and after a month or two the officers got together and formed a new guild with most of the members that were still active. But, it too fell apart when the leader and several of the officers, all friends in RL, decided to leave the game all together to go play Conan. Thus leaving the other officers and members with an empty leadership and no way to save the guild.

This is similar to the system City of Heroes and a few other MMO's use and has been needed for some time. The only difference being, from what I remember of my COH days, that it was 90 days before the successor took over. If a successor wasn't appointed, it went to the next oldest member of the guild that was active.

No matter what, this is a system that has been needed for some time. Like most things, when they are initially introduced, it will probably need some tweaks. But, it's a great start. Thumbs up.:D

[Tolero]

This sums it up best for me. Why change a mechanic that was already working? Why FORCE a usurpation?

The mechanic was not already working. We have a significant volume of complaints from guilds who are left adrift when the guild leader goes awol, the successor goes awol, and officership is either
A) Unable to grow their ranks because they can no longer promote anyone else to be officer
B) Unable to demote or remove problem officers and the leadership never returns to deal with the problem

The LOTRO system, guild housing and all, has been in place since it's launch, and works well to allow guilds to maintain their guilds on a long term basis. Their system goes further in that if every single member of an entire guild goes inactive, the guild will automatically disband to free up the guild name (we decided not to implement that last bit).

[Bladedge]

Correct. That functionality has been in the game since launch (though at some point recently it had some flaky behavior preventing it from working for the successor in a few cases).

Post script: Now that I think about it, it may not have been with initial launch, but it's been there for as long as I can remember, and I joined the game in 06.

Usurp was introduce in Module 2: Twilight Forge

A "usurp" button has been added to the Guild UI. This button will appear on the Guild Successor's Guild UI once the Guild Leader has not logged in for 3 weeks. Pressing the button will auto-promote the Guild Successor to Guild Leader. We highly recommend that all guilds choose a successor, so that your guild will not be left without a guild leader.

[Schmoe]

i think that part of that issue was leaders are/were not selecting a second in command and by not having a second in command could bypass the usurpation option


The mechanic was not already working. We have a significant volume of complaints from guilds who are left adrift when the guild leader goes awol, the successor goes awol, and officership is either
A) Unable to grow their ranks because they can no longer promote anyone else to be officer
B) Unable to demote or remove problem officers and the leadership never returns to deal with the problem

The LOTRO system, guild housing and all, has been in place since it's launch, and works well to allow guilds to maintain their guilds on a long term basis. Their system goes further in that if every single member of an entire guild goes inactive, the guild will automatically disband to free up the guild name (we decided not to implement that last bit).

Thanks for the reply

If that's the case, it seems like a better system would be as follows:

POTENTIAL USURPER =

1. Second-in-command, if assigned
2. Officers, if assigned and no second-in-command assigned
3. Members, if no officers and no second-in-command assigned

Then there is always at least one usurper (except for a 1-man guild), but there's no way for everyone to have a shot at usurping.

[Skirmish]

Reading through the posts, I saw listed an "existing system" for handing over the reins.

Personally, Even being one of the last couple active member/officer keeping the lights on in a dead guild house, I've never seen anyone take over from an absent leader in this game. Save when the guild leader was being deployed and handed them over to his second before leaving.

EDIT: Nevermind, Tolero covered it...

The mechanic was not already working. We have a significant volume of complaints from guilds who are left adrift when the guild leader goes awol, the successor goes awol, and officership is either
A) Unable to grow their ranks because they can no longer promote anyone else to be officer
B) Unable to demote or remove problem officers and the leadership never returns to deal with the problem


Thanks T'!

[FlyingTurtle]

Usurp was introduce in Module 2: Twilight Forge

I totally take back my comments about poor prioritization. The fact that it's already in the game reduces the effort of implementation to just a couple hours of work tops (omitting testing).

[Tolero]

... it will probably need some tweaks...

Indeed. Tweaks are definitely on the table, but I have serious concerns that players don't seem to be aware that you could ALREADY "lose your guild" for not playing your leader character for two weeks. We've always intended for guilds to be able to be passed to subsequent members when the leader can no longer facilitate leadership.

[Phemt81]

Indeed. Tweaks are definitely on the table, but I have serious concerns that players don't seem to be aware that you could ALREADY "lose your guild" for not playing your leader character for two weeks. We've always intended for guilds to be able to be passed to subsequent members when the leader can no longer facilitate leadership.

And this is the only way to avoid wasting the work of all its members :)

[Tolero]

Thanks for the reply

If that's the case, it seems like a better system would be as follows:

POTENTIAL USURPER =

1. Second-in-command, if assigned
2. Officers, if assigned and no second-in-command assigned
3. Members, if no officers and no second-in-command assigned

Then there is always at least one usurper (except for a 1-man guild), but there's no way for everyone to have a shot at usurping.

We thought about this too, but the problem is also too many times when a leader forgets to (or maybe didn't realize they could in the first place) assign a successor at all. Then they're right back at square 1.

[Ungood]

You say that as if people don't regularly have heart attacks. It happens and most of the time people come back from it mostly okay-ish. It does take some time out of you schedule, though...

We have lives, and things happen. From our family members to being born, jobs changing to loosing our homes, and people dying, life happens around us. There is no question of that.

Making a fuss about ]"Oh next time I have a heart attack I'll tell them call my guildies" is being a melodramatic and you know it, we all know it.

But see, LIFE does happen, which is the very idea of a successor, so that if you can't be around, someone, you have hand picked, to take over, is around. Someone you trust.

Now, from these posts that are about "NO! It's MINE! MY GUILD!" I question heavy if people truly do have the frame of mind to appoint a proper successor, or better yet, they appoint themselves as successors. which leaves the same problem of an inactive guild leader, just now permanently, which is why the successor if by inactive response needs to be passed up.


I do see people correctly complaining that this "fix" will REQUIRE a successor or officer to usurp if the guild leader is afk for a month in order to keep the guild from potentially falling into the wrong hands. I like everyone in my guild that I know*. That doesn't mean that I want everyone in the guild to have the ability to take the guild away from the guild leader.

I already expressed my feelings on normal members taking over the guild on the FIRST Page. Liked for you: http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=3564635&postcount=14

But, given what I have read, I am now more convinced then ever that a mechanic where if the GL is not active the title needs to be passed on, if the successor does not respond, then the leadership needs to move down the chain to an active player in that guild to ensure leadership is maintained. The leader by concept and foundation, should be an active member of the guild since they are the only ones that can make officers or remove problem officers.

If the person who holds the guild leader title is an active player is it is a small matter to log in once a month to maintain standing, maybe even take care of promotions.

Just saying. It will be a good thing, overall. Any guild with a solid leadership can take a few moments of planning to appoint a proper successor or have at least a few good officers, should have nothing to worry about from this change.

If you are a guild leader and thinking "There will be times when I won't be able to log in due to whatever issue" then appoint someone a successor to take care of things in your absence, that way, it is one less thing you even need to think about and you can focus on your real life, when it blindsides you.

[DakFrost]

No you wouldn't have had to leave, because you would have been the leader all of a sudden and without warning your members. :eek:


That would have been nice, since I was the last officer to wait around in hopes the leader would return. Alas, after over 3 months without a leader (whose BF was the successor) the remaining 5 members of the guild packed it in.

So yeah, despite your snark, I would have been leader.

[Bladedge]

We thought about this too, but the problem is also too many times when a leader forgets to (or maybe didn't realize they could in the first place) assign a successor at all. Then they're right back at square 1.


Then there are the guild leaders appoint themselves as the successor.

[sephiroth1084]

I would say the number of days is too short and I'm not sure that I like the fact that a member could overstep the officers.

If there are active officers that don't usurp then a member should NEVER be able to usurp.
Agreed.

The time periods should be extended to something like 60 days of inactivity on the account of the guild leader before opening up the possibility to the guild successor. The guild successor should then have about a month (30 days) to usurp before the option opens up to officers in general. The option should never open up to members.

10 days is not enough time for this stuff to be switching modes. People could be on vacation, or could be having a difficult time reaching the guild leader via other means once they've found out he or she has been gone for too long.

Regular members of a guild should never have the opportunity to usurp the guild leader in this fashion. If the guild is in such dire straits as to make such a move necessary, because no officers are stepping up, it's time to quit the guild and move on if it's bothering you. It's not like the guild ceases to function in the leader's absence. Players can still be accepted into, and kicked out of the guild.

[Elyanna]

Indeed. Tweaks are definitely on the table, but I have serious concerns that players don't seem to be aware that you could ALREADY "lose your guild" for not playing your leader character for two weeks. We've always intended for guilds to be able to be passed to subsequent members when the leader can no longer facilitate leadership.

With Renown and Airships I can understand the issue of losing a guild leader. But having all usurp functions based on just the inactivity of the leader seems a little off to me. If the successor is active and not usurping there is almost definitely a reason for it. If there is no successor named then the officers should be able to do it. If the officers are able and active and not doing it again there is a valid reason as to why this is occuring. Please consider this before implementing the above system. This protects the chain of command while also allowing for a transfer of power if it is needed.

[IronClan]

Indeed. Tweaks are definitely on the table, but I have serious concerns that players don't seem to be aware that you could ALREADY "lose your guild" for not playing your leader character for two weeks. We've always intended for guilds to be able to be passed to subsequent members when the leader can no longer facilitate leadership.

But forgetting to log your "leader character" for a few weeks and then going on a couple week vacation doesn't equal no longer facilitating leadership.

It equals a bone headed mistake that results in any officer or possibly member being able to ninja your guild. With no voting, no checks and balances, and no refund of the $200 dollars in Astral Diamonds he spent to buy his guild a Typhoon.

I don't object to the system on principle I object to the "quick and dirty" implementation that doesn't provide for a membership vote, and has no "checks and balances" at all.

Maybe it works in LOTRO, but can LOTRO guild leaders spend $200 dollars on an Airship?

[atkbeast]

Indeed. We've always intended for guilds to be able to be passed to subsequent members when the leader can no longer facilitate leadership.

Perhaps you should make sure the current system is functioning as it is supposed to. I am the successor in 2 guilds, 1 in which the leader passed away back in May and the other a guild for my little used toons that I have not logged on the leader toon in over 4 months. In both cases, I have never seen the usurp button that I have read is supposed to appear. And when I bring up the guild commands in chat there is nothing regarding usurp there either.

Either I am missing something or the current system has problems.

[Ungood]

Agreed.

The time periods should be extended to something like 60 days of inactivity on the account of the guild leader before opening up the possibility to the guild successor.

It should not mark the account. The GL might diss the guild they are leading, and join a different one due to internal issues, or move to a different server and not even think about the guild they left behind, I have just read posts about people with 30+ toons, and there is too much that can get lost.

I believe that the GL the toon must log on, and be active, in fact, I would put a timer on it, like at least 3 hours a month, as opposed to just letting them log in for a few moments to just have logged on to keep their title.

[stainer]

Maybe it works in LOTRO, but can LOTRO guild leaders spend $200 dollars on an Airship?

No. But their version of MyDDO works.

[Arzoah]

We thought about this too, but the problem is also too many times when a leader forgets to (or maybe didn't realize they could in the first place) assign a successor at all. Then they're right back at square 1.

Make it a default. The first person recruited in is successor assigned. If that person leaves, the next person recruited is a successor. Anything like that. Or make it an annoying pop-up that doesn't go away until a successor is named (re-opens every 5 mins if the player closes without chosing).

And it would probably make sense to modify this system based on guild level.

Loyal small guilds that have been active for 5 years and may or may n ot have a high guild level probably don't care about your ursup feature and have little to no threat due to the tightness of the guild.

Your complaints are likely coming from larger guilds with new players that have influxed, banded together, and then the original leader went MIA while the body continued to proceed gaining renown and experience. Tying the system in with these newer players is the main issue because the underlying issue is no one wants to recruit a new player and at that time find out the new player is willing to press the "ursup" button and then disband the entire guild. That's the perfect storm issue.

Something like this would be a better timeline. Second, a Keep Loyal Button idea mentioned to reset the timeline would be better starting at the Successor and then the Officers and then the Members.

Successor: Take guild over at .35 days * Guild Level.
Officers: Take guild over at .7 days * Guild Level + 2 weeks.
Members: Take guild over at 1 day * Guild Level + 2 weeks. (Highest level guilds where this matters most take longest to be taken over by a standard member)

I still think a New Recruit status should be created and require auto-dismissal, promotion or retainment every 30 days. New Recruits would bring less renown to the table (renown *.3 or .5 for exampe) but would also not have any say in the ursup function, thus allowing guilds to recruit without fear of their newest wild card member taking over the guild with the ursup function.

[t0r012]

If I pay my money for my guild charter in the store , you should not even be allowed to pry the guild from my cold dead hand.

want to be the king?
Go start your own guild.

[Arzoah]

Maybe it works in LOTRO, but can LOTRO guild leaders spend $200 dollars on an Airship?

That's a novel idea. Head on Nail, Hammer harder.

Now that the player's money is involved, is Turbine going to refund them when they come back from a deployment in Afghanistan or a 2 month long vacation overseas?

There's something to gnaw on, Turbine.

[Schmoe]

We thought about this too, but the problem is also too many times when a leader forgets to (or maybe didn't realize they could in the first place) assign a successor at all. Then they're right back at square 1.

Well, at the very least it sounds like you folks put quite a bit of thought into it, and I can see that there are some tricky situations to consider. You may have actually won an internet debate! :p

It looks like there are still quite a few concerns about the time frames involved. However, I can't really comment on that, and I'll leave it to others and hope that everyone reaches a situation suitable for all.

[Ungood]

With Renown and Airships I can understand the issue of losing a guild leader. But having all usurp functions based on just the inactivity of the leader seems a little off to me. If the successor is active and not usurping there is almost definitely a reason for it. If there is no successor named then the officers should be able to do it. If the officers are able and active and not doing it again there is a valid reason as to why this is occuring. Please consider this before implementing the above system. This protects the chain of command while also allowing for a transfer of power if it is needed.

Do you mean, like this idea?


You know what might be a good idea, have a third option, say, after 35 days, the Successor can take over the guild, or re-establish the current guild leader as the active leader, IE: a Keep Loyal Option.

This, if no one keeps loyal to the Guild leader, THEN anyone can take over.

I would like that option as well. It would be a good alternate. I would also like to see the Successor be able to make officers.

[knightgf]

I say personally, we greatly trim down giving all guilds pre-defined numbers and settings in the future. Why is this, you ask? I understand the technical difficulties in doing something like this(For example, back in the day, you could change or assign ranks in guilds before a bug was discovered making it weird), but giving guilds the freedom to chose how active members and the leader itself are required to be is just one of several great steps to allow guilds to be unique, rather than cookie-cutter design guilds. Giving players the option to change how active or inactive their guild can be will allow them to better distinguish between power-gamer guilds and more casual-related guilds.

As a matter of fact, the restricted nature of various things in DDO:EU is actually a bit of a downside I see. I know, granted, it's again, a technical issue, but if you were to give players more freedom in doing various things(Creating bound-to-character weapons/items in the DDO store for example) the benefits would outweigh the consequences in several ways. Here are a few examples of how giving more freedom of what you choose in the game can benefit both Turbine and the Players:

Benefits of more choices for players:



More ability to make guilds unique and fun. Rather than giving players pre-assigned numbers and settings, you could give players the option of letting players choose how active or inactive guilds can be, as well as assign what rank grants privileges and how many ranks there are in a guild. This gives guilds options to a wide variety of settings and allows players to perform functions more effectively in a guild.
More flexibility to purchase certain items in the DDO store. Rather than giving players pre-made items with effects, players could just buy a item of the level they can wield it at, and give players a buffet of options for them to make their item with (Such as item material, item enhancement or other effects). If they want a particular rare item they still have the option of searching in the auction house or trade for it but if they can spare the points, they can buy a Bound to Character type of that item from the DDO store.
Higher potental replayability. The more choices players have, in say, a storyline for example, the more fun it can be! I can already see this is being demonstrated in one of the quests in the Red Fens, where you have the option to smash through the quest or use stealth! If this was implemented more, players can have more fun playing quests in their unique manner!

Benefits of more choices for Turbine:


More time for content in the long run. Rather than releasing X type of weapon one update than X type of armor the next, how about just giving us a buffet of weapon/armor choices and let us decide what weapons/items to craft? That way, if players are looking for a particular item or armor and don't want to keep searching for it, they can just dump some points in the DDO store and create that particular item, rather than waiting update to update to see what's available! Of course, this is not intended to be something overpowered, it's just basically being able to access the loot table for standard items and creating whatever you want, at a price.
Giving players more benefits in one type of content. Giving players more choices in content greatly expands how much benefit they can get out of it. For example, giving players the option to set how active or inactive guilds are or giving players the ability to customize ranks in guilds saves Turbine from constantly having to update and change settings or numbers. That way, if players think leader inactivity is too short or long, Turbine can let the players decide or squabble over themselves so they have a better time focusing on development.
Creating a better in-game system for the future. When Turbine released the DDO store as part of their reroll, they designed a revolutionary payment system in the MMORPG that gave players the choice to either grind severely for content or pay for it much like other subscribers. If they could implement a game mechanic in the future that would give players more choices and unique encounters(Similar to the 'director' AI from Valve Software), they could give players better and more unique challenges in gameplay as well as better flexibility. This would mean more rewards(Although I don't value the rewards much given how Ten Ton Hammer smothers Turbine with them) and in the long run, more profits for Turbine.

Overall, giving guilds more flexibility in inactivity, ranks, and more would be a great way to add more value and fun to guilds in-game. Sure, you may get people complaining about how they got kicked for being inactive 3 days, or how there are so many ranks that it gives people a headache, but hey, that's choice for you. When guild ranks were first released, stories of players disbanding guilds to join higher level guilds, as well as drama of high guild levels with players that are in it just for the airship were all seen, but even with controlled freedom, players mess up. It's only human. The benefits of giving players more flexibility for inactivity and ranks outweigh the consequences.

[rest]

9 pages of why I choose not to be a guild leader. Or an officer, for that matter :D

[The_Mighty_Cube]

*slurp* delicious.

Let's keep it civil from here on out.

[Phemt81]

Do you mean, like this idea?

SHUT UP!!!! You are me!!! :D

[Tolero]

Maybe it works in LOTRO, but can LOTRO guild leaders spend $200 dollars on an Airship?

I'm not entirely up to speed on what features LOTRO players can pay for with Turbine Points, I may have to snag Sapience on that one. I do know that they have guild housing that requires a hefty plat (er gold sorry, their version is gold) contribution to acquire and maintain. If they don't pay their upkeep, they lose access to the entire house last I knew, guild raid trophies and all. At some point they built a system to allow players to re-pay the fee to get it all back, but until that is met, the entire house is inaccessible.

To create a guild in the first place they must
- Pay for a charter
- Be above a certain character level to get the charter
- Have at least eight other characters (with at least two separate accounts)
- If they don't get it together within 5 days of forming, it auto disbands.
- If they don't have a minimum of 8 characters, they have 5 days to get those numbers back up or it disbands.
- If the entire guild goes inactive, it disbands.

[joneb1999]

Is this method by Turbine legal? In real life if you buy something then its yours and it cant be taken away from you just because you dont use it. This is the real life side of the game where real money is put into it so I would think a guild though an in game property has real world value and taking it from the owner would break the rules of trade in real life. Im thinking Turbine are walking on a tightropes edge with their policies regarding the legal side of things. Im pretty sure the amounts of crystals needed to buy some expensive airships would mean they would have to be bought with real money paying for Turbine Points as I dont think you can get those crystals often within the game if at all.

[Arzoah]

I'm not entirely up to speed on what features LOTRO players can pay for with Turbine Points, I may have to snag Sapience on that one. I do know that they have guild housing that requires a hefty plat (er gold sorry, their version is gold) contribution to acquire and maintain. If they don't pay their upkeep, they lose access to the entire house last I knew, guild raid trophies and all. At some point they built a system to allow players to re-pay the fee to get it all back, but until that is met, the entire house is inaccessible.

To create a guild in the first place they must
- Pay for a charter
- Be above a certain character level to get the charter
- Have at least eight other characters (with at least two separate accounts)
- If they don't get it together within 5 days of forming, it auto disbands.
- If they don't have a minimum of 8 characters, they have 5 days to get those numbers back up or it disbands.
- If the entire guild goes inactive, it disbands.

In the new f2p membership of LOTRO, can the guild leader buy gold to buy the house?

In DDO the TP is used to buy astral diamonds or get really lucky and find them or grind TP out and purchase them over time.

Either way, the contribution from a guild leader towards a level 80 airship seems potentially far greater than the LOTRO measure. And as you said, the kingship has the option to reopen the kinship house and reclaim access, etc. However, it's also important to note that the kinship's leader has the authority on the house and can set who has access to specific chests, etc -- kind of like a successor and officer is allowed to do more than a standard member.

It all comes back to a standard member taking over a guild in DDO and that system needs to be re-examined before it is initiated.

[DakFrost]

Is this method by Turbine legal? In real life if you buy something then its yours and it cant be taken away from you just because you dont use it. This is the real life side of the game where real money is put into it so I would think a guild though an in game property has real world value and taking it from the owner would break the rules of trade in real life. Im thinking Turbine are walking on a tightropes edge with their policies regarding the legal side of things.

From Wiki, under abandoned property;

Property is generally deemed to have been abandoned if it is found in a place where the true owner likely intended to leave it, but is in such a condition that it is apparent that he or she has no intention of returning to claim it. Abandoned property generally becomes the property of whoever should find it and take possession of it first, although some states have enacted statutes under which certain kinds of abandoned property – usually cars, wrecked ships and wrecked aircraft – escheat, meaning that they become the property of the state.

[Elyanna]

Do you mean, like this idea?



I would like that option as well. It would be a good alternate. I would also like to see the Successor be able to make officers.

How about by the successor/officers being active not usurping ... it's automatic that they have kept it as is?

Is this really that difficult?

The whole issue I have with the system being proposed is that a member in a guild with ACTIVE leadership can overstep the current leadership. Yes I know that successors can not make new officers. Well if you need new officers then you probably needed the successor to usurp.

I've left things like that out of previous posts because it should be common sense that if things need to be done that only the guild leader can do then it makes sense for the leader to be switched until the leader can resume.

How about this as a simple solution
1) Guild Leader and all his/her characters in that account that are in the guild go inactive for 30 days.
2) Successor now has option to usurp...If the are active and don't usurp everything stays as is.
3) If the Guild Leader and the Successor on all characters in guild of their account have been inactive concurrently for 60 days, The officers now get the option to usurp.
4) If this isn't done then the guild either knows what the heck is happening and chooses to do as they have done or I'd seriously question the active characters in the leadership of the guild.

[Tolero]

It's also important to note that the kinship's leader has the authority on the house and can set who has access to specific chests, etc -- kind of like a successor and officer is allowed to do more than a standard member.

Their leadership also can be usurped by the successor, followed by officer, followed by members, followed by no more guild exists at all (and so far as I'm aware, when that happens, no more house exists either. Again I'll have to check with Sapience on that).

[Arzoah]

Their leadership also can be usurped by the successor, followed by officer, followed by members, followed by no more guild exists at all (and so far as I'm aware, when that happens, no more house exists either. Again I'll have to check with Sapience on that).

Well, tie that into a guild airship and its monetary value.... Sounds like a bad idea.

[AZgreentea]

Is this method by Turbine legal? In real life if you buy something then its yours and it cant be taken away from you just because you dont use it.
Untrue. Here is a real life example:

In Arizona I can buy a car. If I leave it in a parking lot then it can get towed. If I dont come back to claim it, then the towing company can claim a salvage title and take possession of my car. It almost happened to me while I was deployed (roommate issue). :D

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Indeed. Tweaks are definitely on the table, but I have serious concerns that players don't seem to be aware that you could ALREADY "lose your guild" for not playing your leader character for two weeks. We've always intended for guilds to be able to be passed to subsequent members when the leader can no longer facilitate leadership.

Yes, but in the existing system you pick who can take it from you.

In your system if that person is active and yet doesn't take it from you because they intend you to keep it, other people can take it.

See the difference?

If the new system only allowed officers to take over if both leader and successor were inactive, that would be fine.

If the new system only allowed members to take over if both leader and successor and officers were inactive, that would be fine.

But for an inactive leader to allow general members to take over...that's wrong.

[Hordo]

Their leadership also can be usurped by the successor, followed by officer, followed by members, followed by no more guild exists at all (and so far as I'm aware, when that happens, no more house exists either. Again I'll have to check with Sapience on that).

Groovy. Why can we not stop at Officer? Why go all the way to any newly invited toon have at it? It seems to be the majority concensus here that that is the problem, not the usurpation in itself.

[Tolero]

How about by the successor/officers being active not usurping ... it's automatic that they have kept it as is?

Is this really that difficult?

The whole issue I have with the system being proposed is that a member in a guild with ACTIVE leadership can overstep the current leadership. Yes I know that successors can not make new officers. Well if you need new officers then you probably needed the successor to usurp.

I've left things like that out of previous posts because it should be common sense that if things need to be done that only the guild leader can do then it makes sense for the leader to be switched until the leader can resume.

How about this as a simple solution
1) Guild Leader and all his/her characters in that account that are in the guild go inactive for 30 days.
2) Successor now has option to usurp...If the are active and don't usurp everything stays as is.
3) If the Guild Leader and the Successor on all characters in guild of their account have been inactive concurrently for 60 days, The officers now get the option to usurp.
4) If this isn't done then the guild either knows what the heck is happening and chooses to do as they have done or I'd seriously question the active characters in the leadership of the guild.

Codeshaper's looking into how tricky it would be to base it off inactivity rather than failure to usurp. It does sound reasonable that if the successor has the option, doesn't take it, but the option is there for the time they need it, they could use it.

In theory a successor can usurp, assign the old leader as the guild's successor, do what they need to do in terms of "grooming" officership or adding officers, then "step down" which would put the leadership back in the hands of the proper leader character without the successor having to hang onto leadersihp the whole time and feel weird the day the leader suddenly reappears. Likewise officers/members could also use this technique if the successor went missing.

[tihocan]

Correct. That functionality has been in the game since launch (though at some point recently it had some flaky behavior preventing it from working for the successor in a few cases).

Post script: Now that I think about it, it may not have been with initial launch, but it's been there for as long as I can remember, and I joined the game in 06.
I can confirm it wasn't at launch. We almost lost our guild due to the leader disappearing. Had to bribe a friendly GM to get it back :)

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Hey T, btw why was this not run by the community in advance of coding? This is exactly the type of feature that has no gameplay impact and is completely about the type of game people want. Why not bring the issue to the people early so there can be a long discussion and then allow that to help inform the way you set it up?

[Arzoah]

Untrue. Here is a real life example:

In Arizona I can buy a car. If I leave it in a parking lot then it can get towed. If I dont come back to claim it, then the towing company can claim a salvage title and take possession of my car. It almost happened to me while I was deployed (roommate issue). :D

The issue isn't the true abandonment (ok, you should lose your guild airship and rulership if you truly abandon the guild). The issue is when the system operates correctly, yet life calls and you and your successor and potentially your five trusted officers all have plans over a 1-2 month cycle, a standard member can take all your work away. It's a perfect storm scenario that's the issue.

No loyal successor, officer or member is going to ursup from a guild leader because he/she hasn't logged on their "leader" character in 2 months. A new recuit however might be dishonest and do so, taking leadership and a guild airship with them. Then recruit their own friends or new recruits and dismiss the very upset officers and members of the former leader.

The Keep Loyal button for Successors, Officers and Members needs to be implemented at a minimal.

The entire system will not dissolve the guild, so an airship can only be lost if the successor dissolves the guild by removing everyone and then destroying the guild.

If the point of this system was to remove inactive guild names, then it would make sense for the faster timeline and standard members having the option to take over the guild.

[Tolero]

Groovy. Why can we not stop at Officer? Why go all the way to any newly invited toon have at it? It seems to be the majority concensus here that that is the problem, not the usurpation in itself.

There *may* be a way to prioritize it based on the "seniority" of the members i.e. a brand new person isn't next in line over someone whose been there since the beginning. Not knowing what would be involved for that I don't want to make promises on his behalf, but I will definitely bring it up with Codeshaper. Would such a method help?

[rest]

Hey T, btw why was this not run by the community in advance of coding? This is exactly the type of feature that has no gameplay impact and is completely about the type of game people want. Why not bring the issue to the people early so there can be a long discussion and then allow that to help inform the way you set it up?

Because they don't care what the community wants :p

I think a lot of the decisions they make are based on exit surveys. Which are, by definition, things that occur when people are leaving the game. So maybe people that leave have an issue with the way guild leadership currently works, but the people ACTUALLY STILL PLAYING THE GAME are ok with it. We'll never know. I've heard they allegedly send out surveys to active players randomly, but I can neither confirm nor deny their alleged existence.

[Arzoah]

There *may* be a way to prioritize it based on the "seniority" of the members i.e. a brand new person isn't next in line over someone whose been there since the beginning. Not knowing what would be involved for that I don't want to make promises on his behalf, but I will definitely bring it up with Codeshaper. Would such a method help?

That and the Keep Loyal button.

Some guilds are ok with letting their leader be MIA for 5 months (mine was 'cuz he was serving overseas in a war zone). The succesor was active but did not ursup on purpose. The officers, given a chance to ursup, would not have done so. The members who had been there the longest would also not have ursuped, which would bring it to the newest recruits as a wild card.

The option has to be stopped by loyalty and reset.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

There *may* be a way to prioritize it based on the "seniority" of the members i.e. a brand new person isn't next in line over someone whose been there since the beginning. Not knowing what would be involved for that I don't want to make promises on his behalf, but I will definitely bring it up with Codeshaper. Would such a method help?

No. Don't let the members have it at all if there are active officers. If their are active officers the guild is being managed and there is no reason to have an active leader.

If all officers are inactive then yes, its fine to let the members have at it.

[Hordo]

There *may* be a way to prioritize it based on the "seniority" of the members i.e. a brand new person isn't next in line over someone whose been there since the beginning. Not knowing what would be involved for that I don't want to make promises on his behalf, but I will definitely bring it up with Codeshaper. Would such a method help?

If it were to, necessarily, have to include all members, such a method would be better than the current suggestion.

I'd love to find a way to re-implement the /guild rank system (this time making sure it doesn't rename everyone and their sister to something, say, HordosMinions *snicker* like last time) and have a required guild leader, successor and "usurper succession" officer ranks pre-defined (but able to be renamed).

Barring that, why can't it just be hard-coded that unless you have the Officer rank you can't see the Usurp button when it becomes available. There are already other buttons that only an Officer or above can see for the purposes of adding and removing members. There are even buttons that only the Guild Leader can see, so would it really be so hard to make the Usurp button function in much the same way as the "Promote" button, the "Successor" button or the "Remove" button?

[joneb1999]

Untrue. Here is a real life example:

In Arizona I can buy a car. If I leave it in a parking lot then it can get towed. If I dont come back to claim it, then the towing company can claim a salvage title and take possession of my car. It almost happened to me while I was deployed (roommate issue). :D

Ofcourse due to the nature of different legal systems and sub legal systems for different countries there will be exceptions but in regards to your car statement I think this is different. :)


From Wiki, under abandoned property;

Property is generally deemed to have been abandoned if it is found in a place where the true owner likely intended to leave it, but is in such a condition that it is apparent that he or she has no intention of returning to claim it. Abandoned property generally becomes the property of whoever should find it and take possession of it first, although some states have enacted statutes under which certain kinds of abandoned property – usually cars, wrecked ships and wrecked aircraft – escheat, meaning that they become the property of the state.

How long does such property have to be left for and where is the line drawn for judging a condition as being apparent the owner has no intent in returning to it and how does that affect virtual property with real world value being that it cant fall in to physical disrepair? Also does this quote refer to real estate or to all items that a person owns?

[Tolero]

Hey T, btw why was this not run by the community in advance of coding? This is exactly the type of feature that has no gameplay impact and is completely about the type of game people want. Why not bring the issue to the people early so there can be a long discussion and then allow that to help inform the way you set it up?

They brought it to us first :eek: we've been tracking this issue for quite some time (it's spiked in my top tens on several occasions over the years). According to my records the LOTRO system was cited repeatedly by players as "why don't you just do it like your other game" (especially once renown got involved). Now it could be that players were upset and speaking from a "grass is always greener" perspective, so we tried to shoot somewhere in the middle, as there were some things about the LOTRO system that we didn't feel would be appropriate for DDO. As with anything in the game, nothing is ever set in stone.

[Tolero]

No. Don't let the members have it at all if there are active officers. If their are active officers the guild is being managed and there is no reason to have an active leader.

If all officers are inactive then yes, its fine to let the members have at it.

Right that's what I mean was assuming it was all based on inactivity through the promotion scheme rather than failure to use the button.

[eris2323]

Just so we're all aware, the Cube is watching this thread, so it's best to put aside the name calling and personal attacks.

The design was based around character inactivity because a user could "ditch" their guild and while still having an "active account" by playing the game with another character, even though they have no intent of ever returning to said guild they abandoned.

Since guild leaders have spent real money on this, will you be adding an 'email the leader' function before allowing members to steal the guild, or will that money be refunded, or will the guild be returned to the leader upon logging in?

Why should I spend any money if you're going to let people steal it?

If people want their guilds to have the ability to usurp, that's fine, but personally, I see that as theft of my hard earned dollars that I give to you, and I could give those hard earned dollars to other companies who won't allow players to steal what they have worked to create...

[sephiroth1084]

Codeshaper's looking into how tricky it would be to base it off inactivity rather than failure to usurp. It does sound reasonable that if the successor has the option, doesn't take it, but the option is there for the time they need it, they could use it.

In theory a successor can usurp, assign the old leader as the guild's successor, do what they need to do in terms of "grooming" officership or adding officers, then "step down" which would put the leadership back in the hands of the proper leader character without the successor having to hang onto leadersihp the whole time and feel weird the day the leader suddenly reappears. Likewise officers/members could also use this technique if the successor went missing.
I like this.

[eris2323]

Untrue. Here is a real life example:

In Arizona I can buy a car. If I leave it in a parking lot then it can get towed. If I dont come back to claim it, then the towing company can claim a salvage title and take possession of my car. It almost happened to me while I was deployed (roommate issue). :D

Can any citizen steal said car, or do they have to have special permission from your leaders with laws to prevent people from stealing any cars they see on the side of the road?

[Coldin]

*smile* You know you're in an information drought when something like this gets so much attention. :)


I think the changes are fine. I've always been a bit nervous if a leader, successor, or even officers take an extended hiatus. Some way to take control of the guild in those situations is a good thing. I wouldn't mind the leadership going to the older members first though.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

They brought it to us first :eek: we've been tracking this issue for quite some time (it's spiked in my top tens on several occasions over the years). According to my records the LOTRO system was cited repeatedly by players as "why don't you just do it like your other game" (especially once renown got involved). Now it could be that players were upset and speaking from a "grass is always greener" perspective, so we tried to shoot somewhere in the middle, as there were some things about the LOTRO system that we didn't feel would be appropriate for DDO. As with anything in the game, nothing is ever set in stone.

Well I'm glad they brought it to you but... See all the great feedback you are getting in this thread, it could have happened BEFORE coding time. And while everything is not set in stone, we all noted the dev comment about "it isn't being looked at again for several updates at least"


Right that's what I mean was assuming it was all based on inactivity through the promotion scheme rather than failure to use the button.

If it was based on inactivity throught the promotion scheme I think all resistance would fade and people would thank you for the new system. There should be a way to save a guild with a membership but no leaders beyond disband and reform.

Edit: Oh, and thank you for engaging for directly in this discussion now :)

[Bladedge]

Hey T, btw why was this not run by the community in advance of coding? This is exactly the type of feature that has no gameplay impact and is completely about the type of game people want. Why not bring the issue to the people early so there can be a long discussion and then allow that to help inform the way you set it up?


I mention this shortly after update 7 no one seem to care until a subject like this happens with the time and effort went into it.

By the way were are the DDO devdairies. Lotro already one of theirs up for the next update. Not saying Codeshaper doesn't count but we want more.

[Missing_Minds]

Seems to me the main issue here is $$$ because of real money on guild ships.

Would it be better instead of usurping a guild, the inactive leader still retains title but the "usurper" gains a "leader" title and ablities Pro Bono but can not remove the guild leader nor strip the title away? Then should the "leader" just not return, title transfer is perminate?

In the case of military activity, then it is the responsibility of the leader to be certain his crew is going to be in good hands, is it not? The guild either needs to respect the fact the leader is going to be gone and bit and shall return, or leader needs to hands the reins over for the better of the guild.

It is the old saying... needs of the many over the needs of the few/one.

Although quite honestly, Usurping leadership for poor/lack of leading happens how often in real life, money or not?

[Arzoah]

Can any citizen steal said car, or do they have to have special permission from your leaders with laws to prevent people from stealing any cars they see on the side of the road?

You need a towing license. :D

[DakFrost]

Ofcourse due to the nature of different legal systems and sub legal systems for different countries there will be exceptions but in regards to your car statement I think this is different. :)



How long does such property have to be left for and where is the line drawn for judging a condition as being apparent the owner has no intent in returning to it and how does that affect virtual property with real world value being that it cant fall in to physical disrepair? Also does this quote refer to real estate or to all items that a person owns?

The Wiki quote simply points out the fact that property can indeed by repossessed if it is deemed to be abandoned which you had questioned in your previous post. As for the timeframe in determining abandonment, that varies widely. I imagine, since Turbine owns the "property" that we are all leasing from them, they can set the terms.

As an example, in most jurisdictions, a landlord can declare a tenant to have abandoned a property if they are absent for more then one month without notification. A 14-day notice of termination to the tenant is then sent and if no reply is received the landlord may reposes the property and all contents.

So, to answer your question about legality, it shouldn't be an issue for Turbine.

[Satinavian]

As for the "stay loyal"-button that was requested :

Would it not be possible for the successor to usurp and instantly pass back the leadership to the absent leader, thus resetting the time ?

[Missing_Minds]

Well I'm glad they brought it to you but... See all the great feedback you are getting in this thread, it could have happened BEFORE coding time. And while everything is not set in stone, we all noted the dev comment about "it isn't being looked at again for several updates at least"

Lorien, this sort of talk has been going on for ages if you watch/remember the forums well enough.

This is just the first time there is a concentrated talk by forum people on it because a dev posted changes coming (that were brought about by feedback.)

People often ignore suggestions/feedback until it smack them in the face at which point righteous indignation comes for front.

What you are seeing is a REactionary result to a passive stance by people.

[Arzoah]

Although quite honestly, Usurping leadership for poor/lack of leading happens how often in real life, money or not?

From Egypt to Star Wars, poor leadership gets noticed...

http://cdn.thenextweb.com/shareables/files/2009/11/129030749970221098.jpg

[Arzoah]

As for the "stay loyal"-button that was requested :

Would it not be possible for the successor to usurp and instantly pass back the leadership to the absent leader, thus resetting the time ?

Yes, in theory your mechanic is sound.

It is easier to just have a button that maintains the same feature. That way it's a lot harder to mess up, per example:

I'm New Member takes leadership. I'm New Member now tries to figure out how to set successor. I'm New Member accidentally disbands guild instead of setting successor. WHOOOPS! (that's an exaggeration, but 1 button for several complex chess moves would be nice)

[eris2323]

You need a towing license. :D

And there's my point. While the ability may be needed.... it's way too extreme, and it doesn't protect the one who decided to put the effort, time, and money into making guilds... so why should anyone bother?

Looters loot, it's what they do. If the ability to usurp exists, people will use it. So why, again, should I spend money to support the theft of my work and money?

[Bladedge]

This is where a more expanded ranking system comes in handy.

The ranks could be:

The founder, leader, officer, member, recruit

With the title Founder of the guild they are able to make anyone leader ,successor and officers. At any time they can revoke and change who is leader and successor. The founder of the guild can never lose the title unless they remove them selves from the guild. The guild can't be disband unless the founder disbands it themselves. The founder of the guild can at any time reclaim the guild even after disappearing on a adventure for 3 years.

Leader would still be able to appoint officers. They can change successor if the founder is inactive for a time. They can't disband the guild unless the founder of the guild removed themself from the guild first.

[Ungood]

SHUT UP!!!! You are me!!! :D

ROFL! Ok, that got me to laugh!

[IronClan]

No. But their version of MyDDO works.

So then a LOTRO kinship leader hasn't got much to lose...

Honestly I've played LOTRO and even been in a Kin, I may be wrong, but it didn't FEEL like a guild... it felt like a slightly more formal version of a "friends" tab...

[Elyanna]

I mention this shortly after update 7 no one seem to care until a subject like this happens with the time and effort went into it.

By the way were are the DDO devdairies. Lotro already one of theirs up for the next update. Not saying Codeshaper doesn't count but we want more.

I would love to see a return of the Weekly Development Activities (WDA). Long ago we knew what the devs were working on through a weekly post on Monday morning. This like this would come up early in the development of it and get debated and a workable solution was found and tried to be implemented.

It worked well when we had it, then slowly Turbine went into hush hush mode and now you only see discourse when someone find a needle in a haystack and brings it to the attention of the forums that "X" idea is being worked on.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

You need a towing license. :D

As a former tow truck driver, that isn't even enough. You also need to be authorized by the city to illegally parked cards if its city property, or property owners if its private property.

[Ungood]

How about by the successor/officers being active not usurping ... it's automatic that they have kept it as is?

Because a non-response is akin to being inactive or apathetic.


The whole issue I have with the system being proposed is that a member in a guild with ACTIVE leadership can overstep the current leadership.

If the leadership is active, they will take an action and prevent the Guild from falling into anarchy.

Which is why a viable "Support/Usurp" option is better then leaving a non-response to be allowed.

As it stands, You can't take anything from active leadership, and with this new plan, that will not change.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Lorien, this sort of talk has been going on for ages if you watch/remember the forums well enough.

This is just the first time there is a concentrated talk by forum people on it because a dev posted changes coming (that were brought about by feedback.)

People often ignore suggestions/feedback until it smack them in the face at which point righteous indignation comes for front.

What you are seeing is a REactionary result to a passive stance by people.

That's true. And that's why many of us speak up in threads that we don't agree with even though people get mad and say "if you don't agree just don't comment".

But the discussion becomes focussed when a dev says "we would like to do X and are considering method Y". That's the point where there can be serious discussion around times, methods, conditions, etc, because you have a starting point based on where the devs think it should go.

[Elyanna]

Because a non-response is akin to being inactive or apathetic.



If the leadership is active, they will take an action and prevent the Guild from falling into anarchy.

Which is why a viable "Support/Usurp" option is better then leaving a non-response to be allowed.

As it stands, You can't take anything from active leadership, and with this new plan, that will not change.

I'll just agree to disagree with you on what an active leadership is.

[sephiroth1084]

That's true. And that's why many of us speak up in threads that we don't agree with even though people get mad and say "if you don't agree just don't comment".

But the discussion becomes focussed when a dev says "we would like to do X and are considering method Y". That's the point where there can be serious discussion around times, methods, conditions, etc, because you have a starting point based on where the devs think it should go.
Plus the knowledge that the devs are actually paying attention. Nothing (in this context) is quite as disappointing as having a serious and fruitful discussion on some suggestion or change for the game that the devs never seem to see. We could have 15 pages of useful comments that never amount to anything because a dev didn't notice it.

[Hambo]

There have been a lot of good ideas discussed in this thread, and it seems to me that the question boils down to "Should a Member be allowed to usurp?"

As I posted earlier, I think my ideal usurption process would be multistep:

1). Only the Successor should be able to usurp an inactive Leader.

2). Officers should only be able to usurp an inactive Successor, even if the Leader is active, with the Leader able to veto. Officers can be demoted by the Leader or Successor.

3). Members can be recruited by all of the above, but promoted or demoted (expelled) only by the Leader and Successor.

There are a few obvious gaps here. In the case of no Successor and the Leader has been inactive for the requisite amount of time, how about an auto-promotion of the active Officer with the most renown to Successor?

In the situation where there are no active Officers in addition to the Successor or Leader the Member with the most renown is auto-promoted to Officer?

By using renown to "jump start" the Succession, in theory the remaining active person who arguably has done the most for the guild has the option to keep things from becoming stagnant.

Couple the above with at least a Forum IM (email to the account registered addresses of the Leader and Successor if doable) and a temporary "Power-Grab" MOTD, this allows at least a re-establishment of the succession, and gives the existing regime a chance to retain control.

Besides, as pointed out in several posts in the thread, if the "cadre" is doing their jobs the situation won't arise, right? :D

[Edit: Forgot to add the idea that there is a delay between the time someone initiates the usurption process and it finalizes, one week for example]

[Tolero]

Plus the knowledge that the devs are actually paying attention. Nothing (in this context) is quite as disappointing as having a serious and fruitful discussion on some suggestion or change for the game that the devs never seem to see. We could have 15 pages of useful comments that never amount to anything because a dev didn't notice it.

It can't be said enough (for the benefit of newer folks) but we see way more than we make comment on. Just keeping up with this thread while I'm trying to multi task EU translations, Monster profiles, and art contest winners is quite a handful, much less if I were trying to code things :X to be fair under the old system people were still only seeing things to comment on after the dev had already done the work. They're aware that they've been a little too quiet this month. Snow and grindstone have been harsh masters... but they're finding things to bring forth ahead of time and chatter about.

One day I'll figure out a way to hook a transcriptionist bot directly to their brains. It will be designed to look just like a quori head crab and you'll just have to excuse that from time to time they'll blurt out "The Path leads to knowledge!". mwuhahaha!!

Actually wait no, that might be a bad thing. I can only imagine the evils that Flimsy and Genasi would unleash upon you were you tapped directly to their heads oO;

[IronClan]

Codeshaper's looking into how tricky it would be to base it off inactivity rather than failure to usurp. It does sound reasonable that if the successor has the option, doesn't take it, but the option is there for the time they need it, they could use it.

At the risk of reinforcing my "fanboy" status I'd like to say it's nice to see Turbine involved in a dialog here and listening to concerns, hopefully this usurping thing will be a little more robust when it hits.

I'm not ashamed to admit I've paid a bill 35/45 days late, and for various reasons (and none of them were my fault I assure you.... /cough ;) ) I'd hate to log in a toon 35/45 days late and find my newest least trusted officer hit the usurp button first.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Plus the knowledge that the devs are actually paying attention. Nothing (in this context) is quite as disappointing as having a serious and fruitful discussion on some suggestion or change for the game that the devs never seem to see. We could have 15 pages of useful comments that never amount to anything because a dev didn't notice it.

I do enjoy the "read by a dev" comments. It's not as good as when they engage, but its nice to know that an appropriate dev read it and presumably was at least listening to what we had to say.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

It can't be said enough (for the benefit of newer folks) but we see way more than we make comment on. Just keeping up with this thread while I'm trying to multi task EU translations, Monster profiles, and art contest winners is quite a handful, much less if I were trying to code things :X to be fair under the old system people were still only seeing things to comment on after the dev had already done the work. They're aware that they've been a little too quiet this month. Snow and grindstone have been harsh masters... but they're finding things to bring forth ahead of time and chatter about.

One day I'll figure out a way to hook a transcriptionist bot directly to their brains. It will be designed to look just like a quori head crab and you'll just have to excuse that from time to time they'll blurt out "The Path leads to knowledge!". mwuhahaha!!

Actually wait no, that might be a bad thing. I can only imagine the evils that Flimsy and Genasi would unleash upon you were you tapped directly to their heads oO;

Yeah, we do understand that people have other jobs to do, so do we but we ignore them to post here :p

You ever think back to when you were Merlask and wonder if you were too hard on the devs? :p (Not that they listen to you any better now, I still don't see a PA system and we still can't sit in chairs)

[sephiroth1084]

At the risk of reinforcing my "fanboy" status I'd like to say it's nice to see Turbine involved in a dialog here and listening to concerns, hopefully this usurping thing will be a little more robust when it hits.



I do enjoy the "read by a dev" comments. It's not as good as when they engage, but its nice to know that an appropriate dev read it and presumably was at least listening to what we had to say.
Agreed.

[Elyanna]

It can't be said enough (for the benefit of newer folks) but we see way more than we make comment on. Just keeping up with this thread while I'm trying to multi task EU translations, Monster profiles, and art contest winners is quite a handful, much less if I were trying to code things :X to be fair under the old system people were still only seeing things to comment on after the dev had already done the work. They're aware that they've been a little too quiet this month. Snow and grindstone have been harsh masters... but they're finding things to bring forth ahead of time and chatter about.

One day I'll figure out a way to hook a transcriptionist bot directly to their brains. It will be designed to look just like a quori head crab and you'll just have to excuse that from time to time they'll blurt out "The Path leads to knowledge!". mwuhahaha!!

Actually wait no, that might be a bad thing. I can only imagine the evils that Flimsy and Genasi would unleash upon you were you tapped directly to their heads oO;

I want to thank you for coming in here and hearing our issues with the current idea of how to implement this.

I know a lot of hard work goes into coding this game and sometimes tough decisions need to be made. I may have come across a little harsh earlier but it was because no only does our leader but our officers do a lot of work for the guild (including spending real world cash on ship hook points and such).

[Missing_Minds]

That's true. And that's why many of us speak up in threads that we don't agree with even though people get mad and say "if you don't agree just don't comment".

I normally tell those people they can go off to the kitchen and make dinner. I have every permission to post my thoughts just as they do. We aren't special, just players with opinions.

T already covered your second part. :)

[Solmage]

Indeed. Tweaks are definitely on the table, but I have serious concerns that players don't seem to be aware that you could ALREADY "lose your guild" for not playing your leader character for two weeks. We've always intended for guilds to be able to be passed to subsequent members when the leader can no longer facilitate leadership.

I am pretty sure it used to be a month, or at the very least, due to a bug, it was a month, because that's how long it took us to reclaim our guild when our elected guild leader decided to simply not show up anymore without a single word.

As for the tweaks, 30 days to usurp is the bare minimum it should be. Frankly it should be around 2 months, but fine, I can see 30 days for the official usurper. But it should take quite a while before anyone but him can usurp, like several months, and - and this is important - *IF* the designated usurper is active, then nobody else should be able to usurp, since he's taking the decision to not remove the guild master as 2nd in command, and the system should not counter his decision.

[SisAmethyst]

35-55 days is too little, the seasonal players should still be able to make casual guilds.
A two month absence isn't uncommon with mid-size guild officers, the leader isn't different.

May be this can be made so that officer's can't usurp unless the succesor is inactive.
If the succesor is inactive then the members can't usurp unless all the officers are inactive.

And even with this feature a full guild rank system would still be better and needed.

Especially the time between officers and members is too short, 10 days? Maybe even without a mail announcement about the fact that the Guild may be taken over?

Far more concerned am I about that point that not everybody will read the forum and is aware about this. One may have announced yesterday that he will be back in 2 months. In this time Officers still can manage the daily needs (like invite/disband), work on the airship. For most operations I not need to be Leader.
However if suddenly the Leader just only play his alt for 3 months the Guild can be silently taken over? Whooot???? This is crazy! It should check on the Account IMHO!

I totally agree to donfilibuster that before we think about things like this we should consider 'a full guild rank system'.

By the way it would be nice to be able to group the members by accounts. For this it is only needed to block them together and have the background slightly iterate between two colors (No need to show Account names or other things). This way one could see if e.g. an Officer is online even if he actually is on his alt that not yet has Officer status.

Anyway, for this 35-55 days hostile takeover thing:

/not signed in this way

[SisAmethyst]

We're starting with these numbers because they are the same as the LOTRO timeline. If that turns out not to be correct for DDO, we will look at changing them. There are some other good ideas mentioned here that we'll keep in mind, but the system itself isn't likely to be revised for a few updates, at least.
Wouldn't it be wiser to start with a LONGER timeline? You can't exactly give a guild back to someone after bad usurps.


I would say the number of days is too short and I'm not sure that I like the fact that a member could overstep the officers.

If there are active officers that don't usurp then a member should NEVER be able to usurp.

I second that!

[Ungood]

It can't be said enough (for the benefit of newer folks) but we see way more than we make comment on. Just keeping up with this thread while I'm trying to multi task EU translations, Monster profiles, and art contest winners is quite a handful, much less if I were trying to code things :X to be fair under the old system people were still only seeing things to comment on after the dev had already done the work. They're aware that they've been a little too quiet this month. Snow and grindstone have been harsh masters... but they're finding things to bring forth ahead of time and chatter about.

Glad to see you here with us, listening!

[SisAmethyst]

There is nothing at all wrong with the numbers. I've worked harder than most to build an incredible guild. Been here for over three years. But if I leave the game for a month and don't have the common decency to pass the star, the members shouldn't get screwed. That's what this is about. Guild member rights, not guild leader rights. You want a guild? Log on at least once per month. Takes one minute of your time.

For everyone complaining about the time period. If you can't find one person in your guild that you trust as a second in command, there's something wrong.

If you are gone for a long time, simply have the second in command Usurp, set the original leader as successor. Leader returns. Swap back. That simple.

How people get screwed? As long as there are Officers that can fulfill the daily routine?

[Tolero]

I do enjoy the "read by a dev" comments. It's not as good as when they engage, but its nice to know that an appropriate dev read it and presumably was at least listening to what we had to say.

Well to be fair just because they read it doesn't mean they drew the conclusion you wanted from it. That's why they have the rest of us to help further highlight what you're "trying" to say even if the way you tried to say it wasn't the way they'll understand it ^^

[Bladedge]

It can't be said enough (for the benefit of newer folks) but we see way more than we make comment on. Just keeping up with this thread while I'm trying to multi task EU translations, Monster profiles, and art contest winners is quite a handful, much less if I were trying to code things....


Curious, You use the word "I'am". Wouldn't the word "We're" or some plural word be better or did Cordovan get eaten by the IceCube or is on special assignment putting something together that your wont tell us about.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Well to be fair just because they read it doesn't mean they drew the conclusion you wanted from it. That's why they have the rest of us to help further highlight what you're "trying" to say even if the way you tried to say it wasn't the way they'll understand it ^^

Well having managed an IT group I do take it for granted that user feedback needs to be translated into IT speak for them :p

[sephiroth1084]

It can't be said enough (for the benefit of newer folks) but we see way more than we make comment on. Just keeping up with this thread while I'm trying to multi task EU translations, Monster profiles, and art contest winners is quite a handful, much less if I were trying to code things :X to be fair under the old system people were still only seeing things to comment on after the dev had already done the work. They're aware that they've been a little too quiet this month. Snow and grindstone have been harsh masters... but they're finding things to bring forth ahead of time and chatter about.
I know it's tough, Tolero, and I appreciate this kind of dialogue, as I'm sure I've made clear, but I thought that's what the "Read by a dev" tech was supposed to cover (the bit in red). I know I've posted several threads in the last 2 months with suggestions that had been getting a lot of community traction, whether in agreement or in alternate ideas, but without any apparent dev attention, and have read several others have posted that were quite excellent.

And yeah, the weather has been a *****. NYC has been hit pretty hard with snow, and more snow, and MORE snow, and now lots of ice, and you guys are further north. Stay safe!

[SisAmethyst]

nevermind, it is not a zombie thread, lol.

A guild leader who is not present is not a leader. He should not expect to have a guild when he comes back. If you are leaving on an expected vacation or deployment, give your successor power. If you don't have anyone you can trust to take over in your absence, then you are not a leader.

Interesting point ... if I am a Leader, bought an Airship, leveled it up more or less on my own. Then some people that from time to time play with me ask for being invited for some rare occasions playing together, but then been forced for whatever reason (military service, job loss, ISP problems) to stay away from more then 55 days that one could overtake my guild that I previously created?

This is not only the Airship, it is as well the GuildName and the money we invested in this.

This is like saying: If you not log-in your Bank Character in 55 days, the Community can take this Character over, including all its current possessions. Would you then still say 'Someone who not play it is not allowed to keep it'?

Ridiculous! :p


Codeshaper's looking into how tricky it would be to base it off inactivity rather than failure to usurp. It does sound reasonable that if the successor has the option, doesn't take it, but the option is there for the time they need it, they could use it.

In theory a successor can usurp, assign the old leader as the guild's successor, do what they need to do in terms of "grooming" officership or adding officers, then "step down" which would put the leadership back in the hands of the proper leader character without the successor having to hang onto leadership the whole time and feel weird the day the leader suddenly reappears. Likewise officers/members could also use this technique if the successor went missing.

That sounds far more logical to me. As long as there are active Officers that could usurp if really needed, but isn't forced to do so or it is would be passed down to the Members. Especially because we only have that little ranks and can't distinguish between e.g. a guild initiate and a common Member.

[Ranmaru2]

They're aware that they've been a little too quiet this month. Snow and grindstone have been harsh masters... but they're finding things to bring forth ahead of time and chatter about.

One day I'll figure out a way to hook a transcriptionist bot directly to their brains. It will be designed to look just like a quori head crab and you'll just have to excuse that from time to time they'll blurt out "The Path leads to knowledge!". mwuhahaha!!

Then bring back what worked. It was a little thing called, oh I don't know, WEEKLY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

[Cordovan]

Curious, You use the word "I'am". Wouldn't the word "We're" or some plural word be better or did Cordovan get eaten by the IceCube or is on special assignment putting something together that your wont tell us about.

I've been reading this thread too, while doing all sorts of work. Those Lammania Release Notes don't write themselves!

P.S. the idea of an Ice Cube amuses me, for several reasons.

[Codeshaper]

It can't be said enough (for the benefit of newer folks) but we see way more than we make comment on. Just keeping up with this thread while I'm trying to multi task EU translations, Monster profiles, and art contest winners is quite a handful, much less if I were trying to code things :X to be fair under the old system people were still only seeing things to comment on after the dev had already done the work. They're aware that they've been a little too quiet this month. Snow and grindstone have been harsh masters... but they're finding things to bring forth ahead of time and chatter about.

One day I'll figure out a way to hook a transcriptionist bot directly to their brains. It will be designed to look just like a quori head crab and you'll just have to excuse that from time to time they'll blurt out "The Path leads to knowledge!". mwuhahaha!!

Actually wait no, that might be a bad thing. I can only imagine the evils that Flimsy and Genasi would unleash upon you were you tapped directly to their heads oO;

Tolero is right, we do read the forums when we can. And for the love of all the gods, please don't let dev thoughts out into the wild! It's a scenario that just doesn't bear considering. <Shudder>

[Codeshaper]

OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.

Thanks, all!

[Lorien_the_First_One]

OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.

Thanks, all!

Thanks Codeshaper.

I'm not sure anyone was suggesting such a long delay for the successor though, your timeline there was fine and a successor only exists if someone chooses one so the guild leader is in full control.

[Elyanna]

OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.

Thanks, all!

Thank you for your hard work and understanding here. Hopefully a suitable solution can be worked on for officers to be able to usurp if a leader and successor go missing or they happen to be the same person.

[Malithar45]

That's why they have the rest of us to help further highlight what you're "trying" to say even if the way you tried to say it wasn't the way they'll understand it ^^

*Clicks Dev Tracker*

*Thinks the apocalypse has hit this thread*

Good to know the above. :D Where can I send donations for your new F5 key?

OT: Gotta agree that it'll be a useful system in the right hands. Unfortunately, in an MMO, you never know if the one's who'll have access are the right hands or not. :/ See the biggest complaint being that it can reach the point that member's can take it over. Just doesn't strike me as an issue, since if you're in a guild worth anything (IMO) you're going to have the Successor and Officers getting a shot at taking over prior to that point. If that's not happening, then perhaps the guild you're in needs to have a look at how things are run, prior to throwing a fit about a useful change that will prevent guild's from stagnating due to a loss of the leader.

And not to add to your plate, but did the issues Sunday set back the Monster Profiles? :o Been itching to read the next one, specially since you guy's hinted at Reavers/Renders/Flensers being a topic at some point. :D

[Elyanna]

*Clicks Dev Tracker*

*Thinks the apocalypse has hit this thread*

Good to know the above. :D Where can I send donations for your new F5 key?

OT: Gotta agree that it'll be a useful system in the right hands. Unfortunately, in an MMO, you never know if the one's who'll have access are the right hands or not. :/ See the biggest complaint being that it can reach the point that member's can take it over. Just doesn't strike me as an issue, since if you're in a guild worth anything (IMO) you're going to have the Successor and Officers getting a shot at taking over prior to that point. If that's not happening, then perhaps the guild you're in needs to have a look at how things are run, prior to throwing a fit about a useful change that will prevent guild's from stagnating due to a loss of the leader.

And not to add to your plate, but did the issues Sunday set back the Monster Profiles? :o Been itching to read the next one, specially since you guy's hinted at Reavers/Renders/Flensers being a topic at some point. :D

The issue is with a guild that communticates Daily through either a Website/Email/Phones however the message needs to be gotten spread to the other officers and most members. The guild leader may not need to be changed even in a long absence. But the one member who doesn't communicate outside of game MIGHT just be that member you mention who is the wrong hands.

[Bladedge]

OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.

Thanks, all!

Half a year with out a guild leader.
I think thats a way to long. A lot can lot happen in 180 days in the DDO world. Should make it between 45-90 days, by then update 10 should be release. If no chages come along with u10 those who want to move the guild along can without having till wait for summer or resorting to starting a new guild.

[eris2323]

OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.

Thanks, all!

With that kind of timeline, even I can agree that that can be fair. Now it doesn't feel like accidently inviting the wrong person to your small guild before a lengthy vacation can come back to find everything they've bought gone.

Removing the ability for members and officers to usurp is great too. I'm sure there's some people out there who decided to buy a guild for themselves, paid for a ship for all their alts and populate the officerlist entirely with their own alts.... why should just that one last guy you invited out of pity to use your ship get to take it over? THAT made no sense, and I'd be demanding a refund... and taking my money elsewhere once this code was released, just to avoid the possibility of problems in the future!

If you HAD to give the ability to officers to usurp back, 180 days for that on top of the 180 days would be acceptable to almost anyone, I bet.

I don't understand why these people don't just pay turbine the 150 points to form a new guild, personally... It's win-win, they get to be leader, Turbine makes a little more cash...

[Hambo]

With that kind of timeline, even I can agree that that can be fair. Now it doesn't feel like accidently inviting the wrong person to your small guild before a lengthy vacation can come back to find everything they've bought gone.

Removing the ability for members and officers to usurp is great too. I'm sure there's some people out there who decided to buy a guild for themselves, paid for a ship for all their alts and populate the officerlist entirely with their own alts.... why should just that one last guy you invited out of pity to use your ship get to take it over? THAT made no sense, and I'd be demanding a refund... and taking my money elsewhere once this code was released, just to avoid the possibility of problems in the future!

If you HAD to give the ability to officers to usurp back, 180 days for that on top of the 180 days would be acceptable to almost anyone, I bet.

I don't understand why these people don't just pay turbine the 150 points to form a new guild, personally... It's win-win, they get to be leader, Turbine makes a little more cash...

I would think that 180 days [that's six months in Rio Linda (about 5 miles from here :D)] would be long enough for the entire process, but as has been said in this thread before it's best to err on the on the side of caution.

As far as your last paragraph, the concern is for guilds that already have Airships and possibly a guild account full of Astral Diamonds / plat for an upgrade or two.

[Malithar45]

The issue is with a guild that communticates Daily through either a Website/Email/Phones however the message needs to be gotten spread to the other officers and most members. The guild leader may not need to be changed even in a long absence. But the one member who doesn't communicate outside of game MIGHT just be that member you mention who is the wrong hands.

In that situation, the guild leader needs to be changed then. As has been mentioned above multiple times, what's the issue of a responsible person taking the lead as a temporary status? It makes no sense to me to be scared of taking the lead from the leader, if you intend to give it back. Where's the harm?

As far as waiting until the point that a member can take it, that's on the hand's of the leadership (Leader, Successor, Officers) to work out BEFORE members can. If no one steps up and does what's needed, then perhaps they shouldn't of been in a position of responsibility to begin with.

As to this revision Codeshaper... Meh. :/ 180 days is entirely too long. Half a year of no Leader, no one capable of promoting Officers, no one capable of handling a problem Officer. It'd all become a mess, to the point that its a change that wouldn't effect much, IMO. Just a straight tiered system of 60/120/180 would work best to me. 60 days no leader login, successor can take over. Another 60 with him not taking over and no leader login, officers can step in. If all of that fails, another 60 and a member can step up. If no one from the leadership of the guild has logged in within six months, I think it's a fair assumption that they have abandoned the guild. With this most recent change, that will continue, with little else changed.