Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

SethDBinJP

Testers
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SethDBinJP

  • Rank
    Hatchling

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Thank you very much, and hello everyone. I will be posting those structural ideas on our forums over the next week or two depending on our ability to discuss and develop them. And hopefully by the end of the summer, our guild will be fleshed out in such a way that we will start to get impatient for the game release.
  2. I am on vacation in the back woods of Maine with a 25 minute drive to the nearest WiFi, and Mingo is off-line for a bit too, so lets put this conversation on hold for a week or so. Then we can all "sit down" and figure out where we are on things.
  3. There is no rush, if we are going to be playing together for a couple of years, we may want to spend more than a day to think about it. In answer to your questions: "What rank would _____ be?" I am envisioning a system where rank is not about power, but about service, interest, and talent. In the system I designed, there are naturally 3 top tier leaders each with their own spheres of authority. Each of them also has a "staff" of middle tier leaders (tribunes) to help them in their spheres of authority. The top three break down like this:1 of them, the Primus Pilus, is in charge of in-game activities: campaign world objectives, PvP objectives, alliances, diplomacy, "wars," cohort coordination, etc. I believe that in Crowfall this will be a more challenging leadership role than in other games, as there will be multiple campaigns running with different members characters locked into them for different lengths of times. Each campaign world will have its own potential and problems for the guild and its members. 1 of them, the Keeper of Records, is in charge of EK and out-of-game elements: membership rosters, recruitment, guild supplies databases, website, forums, and other tech support for the guild (team-speak or whatever is best these days.) The also manage all of the guild's in-game EK resources. So as campaign world resources are won and transferred to the EK, they are ultimately managed by the Keeper and his or her staff of Tribunes. In-game-play-wise, a player who is interested in running crafting, buys, selling, and other market games, would be a good candidate for the Keeper or one of his or her Tribunes. 1 of them. the Legate, is in charge of providing a unifying guild culture. This may seem minor to some people, but I consider it the most significant to a guild I would actually like to play in. People will follow for a while any leader, even an asshat, who can help them gain an advantage in game, but they will find it meaningful and enjoyable to play the game if following that leader is a part of the "story" of the game. This is lore, but it is more than lore. It is the identifying flavor and style of a guild. It is the difference between working in a generic tech department and working for a company like Apple. Having a specific cultural identity to join and play within, significantly enhances the experience of all of the guild members. I see the Legate as the heart and sole of the guild. As such, they cast the deciding vote if the Keeper and the Primus Pilus disagree on a policy that affects the guild as a whole. Which of the three would I or you be? I honestly don't care which I am. I am ok with not having a leadership role at all if someone else can do it better than me. I have observed and played with too many groups lead by people who lacked actual leadership. So, if need be, I am willing to serve as a leader to get the game experience I want. My concern is to have a guild that improves my enjoyment of the game. That includes enhancing my power to achieve in game goals, but it also includes having a group that I want to log-in order to play with. I know that for any guild I join, the leaders need to be good at leading, and not simply seeking followers to enhance their own power. Especially after the game launches, I do not think I would be able to be an effective Keeper of Records, or Primus Pilus because I lack the real life free-time to devote to them in a larger guild. But in the pre-launch stages, assuming we do not get an explosion of recruits, perhaps I could. 2. "How do tribunes, Legate, Keeper of Records work in game." Tribunes are mid-level managers. They are the staff assisting the Legate, Keeper, and Pilus. How do they work in-game? All of these leadership titles are for players as opposed to characters (though of course you could give your character the same title in game.) The Primus Pilus coordinates all in-game efforts between cohorts. Cohorts are the unit of organization for in-game play, both on the EK and in campaign worlds. Players with Tribune, Keeper, Primus Pilus, or Legate titles would have characters with these titles in the EK's feudal system, but within campaigns their characters would also need to be part of a cohort. The character could lead a cohort, or it could just be a regular member depending on how the player enjoys playing campaigns. So, if your focus in in-game campaign leadership, you may be interested in being the Primus Pilus. As a player in the guild with this title, you would need to coordinate and manage the cohorts across all of the campaign worlds they are playing in, even if your character is not in that world. But, for your own "play," within the campaign world(s) you put your character(s) into, you could also lead a cohort. That cohort, because of your title, would be the primus cohort, leading the efforts in that campaign world. Even if the Legate and Keeper also have cohorts within that campaign world, the Pilus is the one coordinating guild efforts in the campaign. 3. You are correct on the graph (chart) being limited in explaining the cohorts. The cohorts listed there were just meant as examples of different cohort possibilities. It was not meant to be the actual number of cohorts. There can be as many cohorts as our EK can sustain, and if we wish, it should be possible for the guild to be spread out across multiple EKs, allowing for even greater expansion in the beginning of the post-release game when our combined "backer" packages allow for greater EK size than actual early game player rewards. The limit on Cohorts is based on the success of the cohort leaders, called Officer of the Vanguard. There can be as many cohorts as can earn in-game resources to sustain their plot(s) of land on the EK. The size of each Cohort is again based on the cohort leaders. Each cohort is expected to maintain their plot(s) on the EK and to contribute a "guild tax" for the greater growth of the guild. (This "tax" is assuming the Devs, who admire EVE online, use a similar structure that allows a guild to collect taxes to develop resources that benefit the guild members.) As long as the cohort, through its leader (Officer of the Vanguard) can meet its EK and "guild tax" obligations, then it does not matter if the cohort has 5 members or 500. Your concern about in-campaign guild wide coordination for objectives like sacking or defending cities, is a very valid concern. In my system, the Primus Pilus is tasked with leading this coordination of the various cohorts. For example, I assume the larger population cohorts would be armies to attack or defend with, while the smaller population cohorts are likely used for smaller unit tactics such as hit-and-run, decoy, or other specialties (the DEVs have mentioned sappers, transporters, traders, resource gathering, scouting etc.) Larger cohorts can exert more raw power and 24hour/7days a week coverage of objectives. Smaller cohorts should have greater cohesion and focus at obtaining specific goals. Each cohort leader (Officer of the Vanguard) determines the play style and interest of his or her cohort and the Primus Pilus (and his or her Tribunes) help coordinate all of the cohorts in the united interest of the guild on campaign worlds. Members pick the cohort they want to play with.
  4. Hello again. I have been to your website. A Ruby supporter definitely has a lot of raw resources to set a Guild up with straight out of the gate, but I do not see a lot of structural planning to define the style of the guild and to state how it will address typical issues, let alone how it will excite people into joining. Without a communication of this planning, it is hard to assess your vision for the guild. Myself, I have been vacillating between finding a guild to join and using my backer resources to start my own. To prepare myself either way, I have worked out a structure for the sort of guild I would like to be in. You can see the results of my thinking here in a website that is not really meant for the public yet http://thethirteenthlegion.weebly.com/ . Feel free to take a look around it. If it is the sort of thinking that matches your own (both of you) vision for the game, we should talk further. If it is not, I would still appreciate any constructive criticism. Either way, good luck and enjoy the Alpha testing.
  5. Hello Rhonim Are the guild leaders you are recruiting expected to play in Overwatch or Forsaken Legends?
  6. I am in the same boat. The amber water was fine.....then I noticed there might be more fish over there..... Not only humorous, but probably summs up the same thought rippling through many a backer's mind.
  7. I do not mean head off on a tangent, but I believe in one of the newer update videos the Devs discussed that they were working on a system where, if you were out of contention for victory you could pledge you support to someone else, and that two players who were both out of contention could, by one sacrificing and pledging to the other actually overtake someone who had been still in contention. And then players could change sides even further. I only mention this, because it seems that the devs are trying to work on a system that is not quite as simple as a game that generates conditions in which someone can end up "loosing early." It may be better to reframe the terms of resource acquirement not in terms of winners or losers (though clearly some people will gain more and others less,) but rather in terms of players who engage more verses those who engage less with bonuses gained for those who "win." By engagement, I mean both socially and in terms of time and efficiency of resource gaining activity in game. Looked at in terms of winners and losers, if I lose too often and cannot keep up with even modestly small gains in an EK, I will eventually quit...which is bad for the success for CF. If I win too often, as someone above mentioned, I might become bored with the grind of it all and also quit, again this is bad for CF. However, if the system is balanced around player engagement (win or lose in the campaigns,) players who engage more will have more resources, and be able to apply those resources to any EK. If I engaged less with the game, for example if I had a busy month at work, I would not expect to be able to develop an EK as effectively. But I could still be quite satisfied with my game play that I had been able to squeeze in, just disgruntled at work for keeping me from achieving more. Does this quibble about terminology and perception do anything to address the question of the OP....probably not. But engaged players will need to decided if the results of their engagement are simply to develop a shiny trophy room, or to re-invest those results in further engagement with others; i.e. pooling the resources on an EK that may not be mine. Since further engagment with others suggests a greater chance of sucess in campaigning, I suspect that many people will choose to build up EKs that they do not own. Although many of them may seceretly wish that everybody else was doing it on the one that they own instead. As someone else said above, everybody would like to be the monarch. "It is good to be the king" - Mel Brooks
  8. Hello, I appreciate some of the Star Citizen videos your group puts out on youtube. I am glad to see you taking an interest in Crowfall also. Your guild seems to be a positive contributor to the games you play.
  9. Hello, I like the layout of your presentation. I might have to steal some of it (This is ment as a compliment not an actual intention, except maybe adding a FAQ, but I suspect you will grant that you did not create the concept....I do not know why I did not think of having one. So tip of the hat there.) I am considering floating a similar structure with a different thematic vision, so I am curious how you address certain things. Something you may want to consider: 1) When you said " All guests in another guild's town are expected to be respectful of the wishes of the guild." Is there a plan for the inevitable squable over antagonists, trolls, and griefers, and non-rpers interupting an "RP only zone"? Will there be some type of judge(s) and is this different from establishing the "Monarch" that you ban in your first rule? I do like, not only the enthusiasm, but also the intended result of creating a world system in which different groups can co-exist without having a strongman boss. I just think it is a very challenging problem to create. I am trying myself, but am hesitant to say I have figured it out. You have a strong vision, how will you infect others with it? I will stop by from time to time to see how you are progessing. Good luck,
  10. There are several critiques regarding the size of her human waist. I would like to throw a little into that conversation. Would a centaur, of either gender, have intestinal organs in their human half? If not, the human torso could argueably be drawn skinnier. However, it would likely have a different anatomical purpose. It would mostly be a structure for supporting the upper half, internally composed of bone and muscle. I suspect that a giraffe would be a good example to base it off of. However, that is just theoretical contemplation, in actuallity I find the original very apealing and would not want to see it altered.
  11. From what we know of EK play, it should be very easy to establish them. Player run ones in campaign worlds, on the other hand are a different story. I would probably, occasionally, enjoy them in a campaign world. I can envision them as an area held by a large and powerful enough guild that can use its reputation and members to enforce a neutral, violence free zone. Occasionally, the peace would be broken, but in general a strong enough guild could keep things from getting out of hand. Opposing factions and independent groups could (usually) safely meet on this neutral ground to parley/brag. I am sure it would also attract the occasional bounty hunter/assassin waiting for you to leave. The guild organizing it could even charge a small resource fee for entry. There are lots of great examples of such places in books and movies. Unfortunately, as fun as it sounds, I do not think they would appear very often, nor last very long. I do not see any hypothetical "large enough guild," having both the desire to organize enough power and, at the same time, lack of interest in using its power to seek its share of domination within the campaign world. Perhaps I am wrong and underestimate the motivations of PvP players. My PvP experiences are limited to EvE and minor flash games, neither of which are really suited to the idea of an inn within a active PvP area. (EvE has its high security areas, enforced by the DEVs, for congregating. I am not aware of any such inns in lowsec. Yes, there are player run stations, but they are not quite the same thing as what these Inns we are discussing would be.) I do not think you could sell drinks very often...however you could probably sell the idea that players are "renting" time in a building/area being boosted by relics/artifacts/statues, the services of certain support archetypes, and the idea of a neutral 3rd party of bouncers who serve to ensure a "neutral" ground for players, guilds, and factions who do not trust each other enough to meet elsewhere.
  12. Is this a common issue with forum posters? The game Devs have been pretty clear that, while people may enjoy spending a lot of the time in an EK and they will not be required to do any actual campaigning, the game is designed around the idea of campaigning. If for no other reason than to aquire the resources needed to make one's EK even more blingy. I can see how, at this time, there might be a lot of focus on the forums with setting up guilds and fealty structures in anticipation of the EK, in part because we cannot really discuss campaigning stratagies and information yet. I agree that a player should consider and play the entire game, which goes well beyond any EK experience. There just does not seem to be enough game information and play experience released, pre-alpha, for us to do much with the non-fealty side of things. So we plan our petty fiefdoms. If there is more concrete elements to enjoy at this stage, feel free to entice me!
  13. For the most part, I have not been here. I have checked in once in a while when the Devs released something interesting, started reading, and then realized that most of the posts and conversations were about individuals imaginings of the game not the actual game. After realizing this, I would go elsewhere again for a couple of weeks, until the Devs released something new and then I would come back to see what the chatter about it was. The only time I have really gotten heavily into the forums of a game still in pre-alpha was for the LOTR online. Because that was a game based on a lot of lore and information that we all had access to. So the forums were very lively with well thought out posts that related more to Tolkien's vision in the early days, and gradually began transitioning to the Dev's vision. There was enough body of ideas, details, lore etc. to keep us fully engaged even very early in development. Nothing against Crowfall, but because it is a unique game without any pre-existing lore, I find it hard to get too worked up at this stage. I suspect that getting too worked up about what the game might be this early, will only lead to disappointment with what it ends up being, even if it ends up being the great game we all thought it could be when we payed to have it made. It could be very great, but it will never match the expectations and desires that some, whom I have read, are building up for themselves. That said, I have decided that my KS package came with such nice guild based items, that it would be a shame not to make use of them. So, I am trying log on here more frequently to get a sense of the people and guilds already forming and to see if I should bother setting up my own. (This is not a request to be recruited, I will handle that when I am ready on the correct forum)
  14. That list is an excellent resource, thank you.
  15. Is there a single location with the final content of the kickstarter packages? On Kickstarter's webpages, there are the original packages, and then one has to hunt around in the updates to piece together the impact of strech goals on the original packages. With the time from now to full launch, I am likely to forget or mix up something regarding the package or a strech goal's effect. This will be especially true if, "As we get closer to launching the game we will probably change the packages again." It could get confusing to keep track of what exactly I have or have not recieved at my level of backing while seeing and reading 3 (or more?) different versions of my backing level's package contents around Crowfall sites. So is there a link/page for the final package contents?
×
×
  • Create New...