Guild Member Count and Allies
 

Confirming that with the new guild system we are going to allow guilds to have a maximum of 50 members. The current alliance system is going to be rebuilt as a result, but not in a way that people are expecting:

All guilds will continue to have a 25 member limit by default and leaders will be given a choice as to whether they would like to expand to 50 members. For guilds that don't increase the member limit we will allow you to ally with ONE other guild. This alliance will be represented in your guild profile, and any points that a guild generates will be split with between the two guilds. If you decide that you would prefer to downsize from 50 members to participate in the alliance system you will need to reduce your members down to 25.

Through offering a more flexibile system we hope to allow smaller guilds to maintain their own identity and partner up when beneficial to compete with the larger guilds. It should also allow non-competitive alliances to maintain some sense of normality in the new system.

Thoughts?

Sounds good to me

This is neat and all, but I have one question.

HOW THE **** DID YOU FADE THE TEXT LIKE THAT??

mmMm thats some good adamin ��

So guilds that chose to uo their roster to 50 will not be able to participate in the alliance system in terms of point sharing ? Then will bigger guilds not have the option to have allies completely? If so that could be disadvantageous for big guilds as maintaining a 50 player guild active and organised will be much more difficult than two seperate guilds teaming up as organising those will be easier giving them the upper hand?
Just a though obviously no one knows how it will play out until it's implemented but guilds might chose just having two leaders and two tags instead of a big guild anyways ?

The idea is really beneficial for family guilds both non-competitive and competitive wise.

For pre-existing family guilds who want to get competitive in NGS they can still retain the status of being a small family and just ally with another guild intent on doing the same which allows them to compete with their 'family' (original members) without needing to recruit more.

Some guilds may just want to make use of it to use two unique guild names instead of one which leaves room for some cool ideas.

Not sure how the reward system works, but if it isn't linear like the 1000>5000>10000 system and offers more choice and freedom to choose the reward you get and when (if you have the points, I just mean being able to select the reward instead of unlocking them in a linear way) then this could also be beneficial to guilds whose members have a different outlook on the rewards and what they want since each guild would be buying the rewards individually allowing both groups to focus on different rewards while all working together. Just a big IF since I have no clue how this works but if it does work in a way like this then it would benefit people making use of the ally system.

I don't see the issue you can already have several leaders in the current guild system, and the new guild system is expanding on rank even more so it is not at all difficult to maintain as you can just have leads who help out if you needed it.

If a guild just felt like using two tags I don't see the issue - the points earned are the same and it plays to no advantage.

Sounds like a flexible way to keep everyone's needs satisfied, nicely done

All good ideas I kinda like it, But same time overall this would be somewhat funky in a way..

For one, This would make it hard for current guilds as of now that have a lot of branching allies (For instance Military and Role-play guilds) to keep in contact with each other if they have allies and members that reach over 50 members.

My thought is perhaps make Guilds more customizable for players. In a sense Role-play guilds may keep the same kinda old guild style but cannot participate in towering,Or activities of that short in competition. While military guilds also have a role-play style guild. And spar guilds perhaps have this newer function but shows spar score stats per each player scrolling down (Like this player is 4th place in season and things like that and perhaps how many spars per season or whatever fancy thing).

I honestly like the new Guild idea, I'd enjoy a 50 member guild. But I do think we can all agree with how the ally system is currently it will likely hurt current guilds that don't even take part in any competition and just socially talk to each other.


But I do love the new guild idea, I think it will definitely make guilds that do competition much more fun. Imagine towering with 50 people. Would be fun

My point is keeping two separate tags allied with 2 leaders in my opinion will prove to be a lot easier to organise / strategise than one single 50 pupil guild.

Don't get me wrong this is a lot better than what's in place now and I've got no complaints but I feel as bigger guilds will be harder to deal with. Although bigger guilds will technically gain points twice as fast as they won't be splitting their points with another guild.
If the guilds not organised due to its large player number they may acc fall behind to two tag guilds that may have the upper hand in organisation and strategy. Does this make sense ?

I'll use old tower strategy as an example, before when I used to actively tower , when taking multiple towers at the same time we used to have a full tag and people on subs. People on subs could be organised to focus defending the first room stairs at shards tower as they spawned right outside of it whilst main tag was responsible for defending the flag and the second pathway / end of the stardom hallway?
People were organised based on they tags and used it strategically to organise a better more efficient defensive barrier, with a single big 50 person guild this may be a lot harder to organise than 2 separate tags where each tag could prioritise on different things quicker and more efficiently

As much cringe military guilds can be sometimes, it is still unfair for them as it would never work out with 2 guilds allied with each other. The way this sounds all guilds will probably be deleted and I wouldn't be surprised if the money spent on them weren't refunded.

It's almost like the military community is completely oblivious and not even considered or thought of in this feature.

They could just expand into a 50 player guild if they aren't happy to be allied to another gulf ? Also they could use the new System to further improve their cringe guild and like pretend there are diff roles and ranks in terms of the allied guild that could be owned by the same people.
This doesn't mean that you have to allow with another guild you could just use a two tag system with the same people ?

We do intend to refund everyone who purchased the allies feature when the major changes are made to it.

thats good

Individual player rewards>whatever this is

Will there be any sort of "open-guild" system, where anyone can freely join a guild that is just starting up, and it's leader/few members don't really know many people?

finally i can rec more to darkshire

oh wait im the only one...

Thallen, can I join your guild when the new guild system start? Oh Cmon you know I am a special player. Well you already know what I will do, right ? =_=

I have a few thoughts.

1. Will it cost money to unally/ally guilds in this system? or will they be allowed to change alliances as much as they like.

2. I have a lot of thoughts on the interactions between the two allied gulids.

Will the guild chats be separate? This seems like it will be a much bigger question than it was before, since before allied tags were just meant to ask for your main tag. Personally I would love the option to seperate out the chats, to allow for more individual identity and to keep the spam to a minimum... If one guild towers (communication essential) and one bks/spars (communication basically is just annoying) having the ability to seperate out would be great.

Will their rewards be seperate? I'm assuming yes, since you said they will split the points.

Will there be options for different kinds of point ratios? I'm imagining a situation where one guild has, say, 10 and one is at 25. The guilds want to ally, but the guild with 25 obvious doesn't want to split the points directly in half. Will they have the option of a few different point splits? Say 75% - 25%, 60% - 40%?

Will the alliances work like before when hitting the flag (only the holding tag can hit it, ally does damage) or will this be reworked so that the other tag heals it as well? (or maybe just doesn't do damage?). Personally I would like to see the allied tag not damage the flag, but not heal it, either. I think that it will incentivize combining into a single guild, but it will also not remove the ability of allied guilds to tower.


3. When this is implemented I'm going to hope that, instead of just removing everyone's allies, it will ask the you which one you would like to keep. But that is minuet, and not too important.

Anything that is not a 50-50 split will result in an unfair advantage.

Guild A gets 1 point and keeps .75 of it, then guild B gets 1 point and would award another .75 to Guild A if it's a 75% and 25% split resulting in guild A getting 1.50 points.

The split has to be even otherwise one guild will earn more per point than a normal guild would 50-50 is the only thing that works that maintains a point per point ratio with normal guilds.

a guild that has 50/50 members would still be more of a points machine than the situation you mentioned. In the scenario you mentioned your assuming that both guild A and guild B will get points quicker than guild C (the 50 member guild). You said that they both earned a point, right? Then why would guild C not make 2 points in that scenario? They have the same amount of members as those allied guilds, so saying that they'll accue points faster is weird. So in the scenario you mentioned your 50 roster guild should earn 2 points, not one. Correct me if I'm wrong

However, i can imagine that making the argument that having points in the decimal places would be weird, than I can agree with that.

Way I see it:

Guild A has 50 members each get a point and they have 50 points.

Both 25 members in Guild B-C get a point each, and both guilds get a total of 25 points but still 50 points overall just split since they chose to do that.

This is a fair trade off assuming both Guild B-C can purchase separate rewards.

If Guild B had 25 members and Guild C only had lets say 15 members Guild B still made the decision to ally them knowing it's a 50-50 split.

Way I see it is this would be good for non-competitive family guilds, since if two smaller guilds wanted to work together they could just turn into a 50 member guild especially if one only had 15 members it would be better to just join together and be a 40/50 guild and just recruit 10 more later on if you wanted.

If competitive guilds wanted to make use of 2 tags for 2 rewards for the different people then 50-50 is the most fair option in that scenario.

I don't see the point in such a system. With the update there will probably be lots of people spamming recruitment so if you desire to be in a guild you should have no problem getting into a random one.

I know that you're going to "lose points" if you kick players or if they leave your guild. But, is the amount of points you're going to lose is huge? Because you will always have players who will go inactive because of in-reality important business therefore, the player must be replaced of a more active one. You're more likely going to have such situations in a guild of 50 members so, is the punishment going to be MASSIVE for kicking members?

Probably depends on the amount of points accumulated by the individual who was kicked

lagblock the enterance to flagroom with 1 member and use all other 49 to stall halls kek

This sounds really interesting. Both options seem viable for different strategies and I'm honestly having a hard time deciding which is the better way to go (which is a good thing). The two 25-player guilds seem best for situations when two guilds are coming together and want to maintain their identities, and I can also see it being used for guilds with distinct parts (such as a pking/tower crew and a spar crew). That being said, a 25-player guild devoted to towering might have trouble against 50-player guilds which are entirely focused on that part of the game, but this will of course also depend on player skill, activity and guild focus on other activities.

Also, as Areo said earlier, I think it might be good to have an option in two-guild arrangements to chat only within your division, or with the entire guild as a whole. However, this could also be a bit of a problem because it would encourage division between the guilds, and I think it would be best if they work together as a cohesive whole.

Thinking on it again, I would personally prefer to be in a 50-player guild due to it being more unified. It would suck to have to worry about one guild not pulling its weight or something like that. Though I can definitely see situations where two 25-player guilds would be best.

So basically a sub guild they already had or option to mass recruit in main guild. revolutionary..

It should be fairly large imo. A large part of that is to stop the temp recruiting that plagued the towering and gsing community for a long time, and turn it into more of an actual guild instead of just cycling through people you only intend to briefly use.

Will kicking members still have negative implications on the guild? Either Rufus or yourself stated it would on the NGS thread.

With the rework of the allies system we plan to make 'combined guild chat' an option.

Why I feel like clown started this new spoiler2 thing

yes!!

Does this mean shared guild chat between guilds that are not allied? Big military and social guilds will be glad to hear it. I can see this leading to some fun stuff.

Never mind, read too much into this.

I been thinking of this post lately, And if I may ask, Why would you lose points for someone leaving the guild? It is almost a backfiring system.

For one, There has probably never been a guild in the history of graal that didn't have a lot of inactive people or people leaving it in general. Somewhat makes it a backfire if they decide to leave your guild completely making you lose points you all worked hard for

And secondly, It would make a big problem in competitive play overall. Guilds constantly fight each other and will go to great lengths to make sure they take their opponent out of the equation. One of those things could be simply have a person go into the enemies guild, Have rec power, recruit someone and have them leave and it would constantly make them lose points (Unless it is based on players points overall they earned). There could be many ways this can be used against the guild who has rivals willing to go this far. And even more so even if there is points lost per what each player earned it can still be used greatly against them if there is any argument or anything.

@fp5 what are you thinking for rewards

The whole point is to make people more loyal to their guilds, and guilds more loyal to their members. It's to prevent the old strategy of constantly kicking and recruiting to maximize the number of players online. Guilds are SUPPOSED to have a loyal, tight-knit group of members who aren't constantly being kicked to make room for noobs. Players going inactive will be a problem for guilds, but I guess the idea is just that they'll be having so much fun under the new system that they'll never go inactive again. As for these sabotage strategies, guild leaders will just have to be careful about who they give powers to. This has always been the case for kick powers, but now that caution will just have to extend to rec powers as well (which shouldn't be a problem, as there will be less need for rec powers under the new system).

Would be nice if a in guild never rank system was improved / more organised , like I love the idea that players are able to name their guilds ranks , however there isn't much to diffencieate then between just being able to kick and rec people.
But I guess ranks will be a bit less important as kicking and recruiting people will not be as common as it was in the old system as guild loyalty seems what is trying to get promoted here the most with the points system which is a good direction to head in.

I was wondering with the point system will hours of capturing a guild tower be converted into points ? Or will we at least be able to still see guild tower hours despite from the new points system? Because it would kinda unfair if guilds that have towered for 10-20 k hours no longer had like a clear visual of their achievements

As Fulgore said, it will stop the mass recruiting. I also agree, a lot of towering guilds used to recruit any player and use them then kick them when they go off. But, I still don't want to lose a huge amount of points, so I hope it will be a decent amount of points that enables you to kick an inactive player once every week without harming the guild.
When we used to tower for the 1k hat only 25 members are capable of getting the hat, and we always had to make "hat list" to choose the most helpful players out of the rest. With the NGS everyone gets paid for what he/she done for the guild, except for the players who got kicked while the journey was going for being supper inactive and ignoring the warnings they had from their leads. That's how I assume it's going to be like if the amount of points you lose isn't huge to a level that unable you from kicking ANYONE through the whole journey.

No, only between alliances

More details on the other parts of the updated guild system will be made available in future threads, this was just mainly to shed some light on the future of the 'Allies' guild feature.

Cya next year :giggle:

thanks :-)

I like the idea :D

any news, please?

I feel sorry for all those dudes that bought guilds+allies and then disbanded them 2+ times lol

Basically, this sort of system is good for people like dark lol, people who ruin the hell out of other guilds, assuming the fact that leaving a guild ruins the guild's points, which i think is a huge load of crap.

So another 3months without any competition? Or can we finally get a seasonal top 3 tower reward?

hoacs

don't bump threads

needs bumped tbh