Guilds

[Ivan_]

A few suggestions and feedback on guilds:
1. Since there were talks on discord about the amount of members in a guild and how that effects the future gameplay, I wanna say a couple of things.
I don't think the amount of players should have a big impact on the gameplay that is planned. This is because I believe guilds shouldnt be about quantity of members and amount of gold - but more about friends and common goals. People should be motivated to join guilds they actually feel attracted to in some way, and not because a guild is on the /guild top. Also there's families that wanna have a guild, but only a few members that realistically would join - so why should those suffer if the gameplay gives advantage to big guilds.
When it comes to the max limit itself, 50 people seems unreasonable to me, i think it should be lowered. This is a server that averages less than 100 online players at a time, so 50 players seems like a lot.
2. House/Allegiance guilds
I'm against the idea of guilds using official Potterworlds terms of groups as a form of promotion for their guild, and claim it as their own. This creates a bit of confusion because those are *unofficial* guilds that appear otherwise. It's dividing players within the group itself, all members of the official group are tempted to join the guild and the people who don't join get left out from something that we all, as members of that specific group, should be a part of. I think those guilds should rename themselves to make it more guild like, for example "Griffin fanclub" or something like that (this is just a dumb example) so that it's clear that those are not official groups.
3. There should be a more clear way to monitor gold within a guild, so the members know exactly who gave/withdrew a certain amount (credits to Matty)
4. Guild housings and storage
I suggested something similar before, and I believe it got accepted, but I'll repeat it here again (maybe it's a bit different than the original suggestion tho). Please make it so we can allow people to only view chest, but not take the items. Having 50ish people is impossible to monitor when you have one storage, so I think it would be good if we could allow everyone to build, but not take the items from chests.

 

[MattyPoltergeist]

A few suggestions and feedback on guilds:
1. Since there were talks on discord about the amount of members in a guild and how that effects the future gameplay, I wanna say a couple of things.
I don't think the amount of players should have a big impact on the gameplay that is planned. This is because I believe guilds shouldnt be about quantity of members and amount of gold - but more about friends and common goals. People should be motivated to join guilds they actually feel attracted to in some way, and not because a guild is on the /guild top. Also there's families that wanna have a guild, but only a few members that realistically would join - so why should those suffer if the gameplay gives advantage to big guilds.
When it comes to the max limit itself, 50 people seems reasonable to me, i could see it lowered a BIT, but i definetelly think it shouldn't be higher than that. This is a server that averages less than 100 online players at a time, so even 50 players seems like a lot.
2. House/Allegiance guilds
I'm against the idea of guilds using official Potterworlds terms of groups as a form of promotion for their guild, and claim it as their own. This creates a bit of confusion because those are *unofficial* guilds that appear otherwise. It's dividing players within the group itself, all members of the official group are tempted to join the guild and the people who don't join get left out from something that we all, as members of that specific group, should be a part of. I think those guilds should rename themselves to make it more guild like, for example "Griffin fanclub" or something like that (this is just a dumb example) so that it's clear that those are not official groups.
3. There should be a more clear way to monitor gold within a guild, so the members know exactly who gave/withdrew a certain amount (credits to Matty)
4. Guild housings and storage
I suggested something similar before, and I believe it got accepted, but I'll repeat it here again (maybe it's a bit different than the original suggestion tho). Please make it so we can allow people to only view chest, but not take the items. Having 50ish people is impossible to monitor when you have one storage, so I think it would be good if we could allow everyone to build, but not take the items from chests.

 

[Ivan_]

Thanks for your feedback

 

[TallBlondeDude]

Honestly I'm ok with size being a bigger factor. If a family wants to go just family, they pay the cost. The alternatives are going to be something that equalizes the seize of the guild somehow, by definition, so guiilds are incentiviced to reject less skilled/rich/available players for reasons beyond the 50 player cap.

 

[AnonymousWizard]

I disagree with certain comments Ivan made,

Guilds should allow for big communities as it gives perks that houses and parties do not. The limit of 50 is good for now, yet in my opinion, guilds are something users can form themselves and do with them whatever they feel fit. I would recommend setting it to 100-150, allowing players tocreate big guilds (im pretty sure that the duelling guild will surpass the 50 easily, and so will other guilds in no-time).

The comment Ivan made for not having guildnames that are the same as potterworld lore names seems irrelevant to me. Guilds can be called whatever in my opinion. I've seen multiple houses open up house guilds, dark followers, phoenixes and aurorlocks opened up their own guilds aswell. Seen the fact that guilds allow for more possilibities then houses and groups do, i wouldnt mind.

Same goes for the fact that players know that guilds exist eventually and know what they are. Players already know houses are houses, groups are groups and guilds are guilds. If people do not have any guild to go to because of not being a member of a family or friendgroup, I would definately allow groupguilds for those players, as some players like to play with their group-members and housemembers. Disregarding that part of the community seems selfish to me as guilds should be about including people and not making sure people cant find a guild fit for their needs.

Greetings

 

[Ivan_]

I disagree with certain comments Ivan made,

Guilds should allow for big communities as it gives perks that houses and parties do not. The limit of 50 is good for now, yet in my opinion, guilds are something users can form themselves and do with them whatever they feel fit. I would recommend setting it to 100-150, allowing players tocreate big guilds (im pretty sure that the duelling guild will surpass the 50 easily, and so will other guilds in no-time).

The comment Ivan made for not having guildnames that are the same as potterworld lore names seems irrelevant to me. Guilds can be called whatever in my opinion. I've seen multiple houses open up house guilds, dark followers, phoenixes and aurorlocks opened up their own guilds aswell. Seen the fact that guilds allow for more possilibities then houses and groups do, i wouldnt mind.

Same goes for the fact that players know that guilds exist eventually and know what they are. Players already know houses are houses, groups are groups and guilds are guilds. If people do not have any guild to go to because of not being a member of a family or friendgroup, I would definately allow groupguilds for those players, as some players like to play with their group-members and housemembers. Disregarding that part of the community seems selfish to me as guilds should be about including people and not making sure people cant find a guild fit for their needs.

Greetings

100 people is ridiculously high considering that's more than a half of our active playerbase. Also it's been confirmed that the amount of players will have a big effect on the gameplay so allowing big guilds to have even more people would just make them OP and would discourage people making new guilds.

The guilds you named are unofficial, they're basically ran by the first person who claimed the name - it's not a unique name that represents that guild, but a server lore term. "I've seen multiple houses open up house guilds, dark followers, phoenixes and aurorlocks opened up their own guilds aswell." - this is the thing that bugs me, you're saying it as if those official groups made the guilds, and that isn't a case. It could've been a random person who just claimed the name, and is now tempting the actual members of that group to join. I could've created the Dark Followers guild, and claimed that name, even tho I'm not even a DF - and still DFs might feel like they want to join, just bc of the name. I could create another group, name it Gryfffindor, and create even more confusion, unnecessary. Also, since you can only join one guild, its disregarding to try and force a specific guildgroup on people over the official group (which already has their chat, so again, the guild is just dividing the people and it's excluding people that don't join).

 

[AnonymousWizard]

100 people is ridiculously high considering that's more than a half of our active playerbase. Also it's been confirmed that the amount of players will have a big effect on the gameplay so allowing big guilds to have even more people would just make them OP and would discourage people making new guilds.

The guilds you named are unofficial, they're basically ran by the first person who claimed the name - it's not a unique name that represents that guild, but a server lore term. "I've seen multiple houses open up house guilds, dark followers, phoenixes and aurorlocks opened up their own guilds aswell." - this is the thing that bugs me, you're saying it as if those official groups made the guilds, and that isn't a case. It could've been a random person who just claimed the name, and is now tempting the actual members of that group to join. I could've created the Dark Followers guild, and claimed that name, even tho I'm not even a DF - and still DFs might feel like they want to join, just bc of the name. I could create another group, name it Gryfffindor, and create even more confusion, unnecessary. Also, since you can only join one guild, its disregarding to try and force a specific guildgroup on people over the official group (which already has their chat, so again, the guild is just dividing the people and it's excluding people that don't join).

I see what you are saying, yet I've been looking trough the guilds and momentatily people only made guilds corresponding with their own group or house in the cases you despise.

Likely there will eventually be multiple groups with housenames in them, to take badgers as an example. Likely in a year or so the following names will be claimed: "Badgers", "Honeybadgers", "Badger Common Room", "Badger Commons" and maybe a few more. If people feel like joining these guilds because they want to interact with the players in their own house more, then there has to be a way in which they can instead of being turned away because there is a rule against having anything with lore in your guild name.

If you plan to open up a guild with a completely different name then the group you are in, that is a low move... You could, but in my opinion that would be a bit sad and most people would eventually figure out and move guilds if they feel the need to.

I do not see why you are making such a fuss about it. If groups arent free to name whatever you want them to name, then what is the fun in guilds.

So to summarize,
I do understand your point about it being confusing. Yet, as guilds all are communityrun and houses do not give the same perks as guilds, I do not mind having housenames or lorenames in guilds.

So dont worry, no need for further discussion. I understand your POV, this is mine

 

[EdenLovesMommy]

Honestly I'm ok with size being a bigger factor. If a family wants to go just family, they pay the cost. The alternatives are going to be something that equalizes the seize of the guild somehow, by definition, so guiilds are incentiviced to reject less skilled/rich/available players for reasons beyond the 50 player cap.

True literally families are families guilds are guilds I don’t think they should be mixed because they are two different things and if you want to mix them then just suffer when objectives drop.

 

[Nives]

Greetings @Ivan_ and others that contributed to this thread!

Thank you for all the given feedback on Guilds, we really appreciate it! We've prepared some answers in regard to the points you brought up.
1. We will take this feedback into closer consideration as we work on the second part of the Guilds Update. At this time, we won't be changing the guild member limit.
2. We do not want to restrict anyone with naming their guilds as they are not official guilds - it is clear by how guilds work that the guilds on the server are run by community members. Guilds can be named whatever the guild owner wants them to be and our lore terms can be used normally anywhere on the server. We do not want to exclude guilds from this.
3. We have added the command /guild activity bank to easily see all the bank activity in one place.
4. This has been mentioned in the recent Dev Housing Update - unfortunately for Guild Housing, our current Housing infrastructure does not give us the flexibility to make more Housing plots. It is however something we hope to do in future.

Again, thank you all for your feedback, it's really helpful to gather information from a players perspective! I hope you have a wonderful day!