Alliances and Guilds backdoors

[Muratus del Mur]

I am about to do something crazy, but you can influence my plan here. 

I want to create an automated way in for all, or some, alliances, that will consider only things that are relevant for that ally. For example, Woodcutters guild should have such a backdoor for anyone with the right woodcutting skill.

War alliances should have a backdoor to allow in people based on their land loyalty.

 

You can suggest or demand (depeding on your tag and role) actual setups for this. This will also be a way to infiltrate and disband, but also to revive disbanded guilds.

I will use this opportunity to enhance and extend the a25 tools to allow such a thing, because everything will be implemented via a25, so it will be adjustable by a25 team if needed.

If you do not agree to this kind of thing, make your voice heard BEFORE i start.

 

[Chewett]

Would you like me to stop the current work I am doing with alliances in favour of you doing this? Currently I have paused MD work while you worked on NPC talk but you have not spoken to me about this.

The last we talked about alliances you were happy about the changes I was going to make and I had already started modifying the DB for the changes.

I agree some alliances/guilds should be able to be taken over so if your tools are useful to my work I will be able to use them. I am not sure if my plans for how they can be accessed will work with your changes as I do not know what your changes are.

 

Make the tools if you want but please speak with me in the future when you know I am working on something.

[lashtal]

12 hours ago, Muratus del Mur said:

I want to create an automated way in for all, or some, alliances, that will consider only things that are relevant for that ally. For example, Woodcutters guild should have such a backdoor for anyone with the right woodcutting skill.

I would welcome this change as long as it refers to guilds.

Woodcutters, water dowsers, fusioneers... They all seem very much related to a particular skill of "art".

I'm not so sure about alliaces, I prefer what Chew was discussing with some of us.

[Esmaralda]

I don't like the idea of folks being able to join an alliance only to disband it, or kick folks out (I'm sure there are folks that would love the idea just for bragging rights).

But i am ok with allowing a way to join some alliances, especially dead ones as a way to resurrect it. Perhaps there can be specific land designated alliances that anyone can try to join (available in each land). So maybe the woodcutters guild in Loreroot, but not the CoE, which is more of an RP alliance? Or the water dowsers guild in MB, but not the Knights of Bell as again that seems to be more of an RP alliance to defend a land, so folks who are not really into MB shouldn't just be able to join and leave as they please.

My big concern is to prevent a few folks going around joining everything and causing havok because they can. Some folks have a lot of loyalty build up from over the years, so if every alliance is fair game, they could simply join everyone, become the leader by default and disband it. People have quit in the past over folks disbanding alliances and with such a small player base, i'd rather not see that again.

[Ungod]

12 hours ago, Muratus del Mur said:

For example, Woodcutters guild should have such a backdoor for anyone with the right woodcutting skill.

Does that mean someone with the right skill will automatically join? I doesn't make much sense, since an alliance is about people willingly coming together. Also, if I'm a Golemian with 100 woodcutting skill, could I join the Woodcutters?

 

[Aia del Mana]

Despite the concern expressed thus far, it seems that the implementation were merely a method to allow for bearers of the A25 Tools to create alternate pathways into alliances. The choice of the alliances that shall use this method and the prerequisite state of such applicants should be discussed with those already within these alliances, especially their leaders.

I am in favour of Mur's creation of the tools; let the discussion of which alliances they should affect be subsequent to this new function.

 

My concerns with the creation of this tool are primarily for the underlying citizenship which is granted upon allegiance. In example, one may become a Lorerootian citizen if she were to amass sufficient woodcutting skill, even if her intent were the destruction of the forest. If citizenship were bound by alliance, then one must require citizenship of a land prior to eligibility for such pathways into alliances. Ungod has alluded to this above; if this is to be so, then shall there also be some method to attain citizenship without requirement of an alliance invitation or monarch's blessing?

 

A second concern were in regard to that mentioned by Esmaralda; I would wonder whether one would keep her existing loyalty upon joining such an alliance, or if it would function similar to an invitation, where her loyalty would become a lesser value than the present leader. If this were so, the necessary loyalty loss would deter infiltration by those with high loyalty; this would be my preferred implementation (unless a different method of rank determination were implemented by Chewett in his changes.)

Edited August 26, 2020 by Aia del Mana

[Ledah]

I don't have a problem with this sort of change.

If I were to make a change myself, I would just make 2 tiers of alliances. You have the 'actual' alliance (badge, land affiliation etc.) and a guild. A guild would be a way to express interest in joining an alliance, would also allow people to show their interest in multiple alliances/what they stand for without having to commit to one fully. If you give alliances more authority/info on what they are supposed to represent (lands mechancis etc.) would be a good way to disseminate that infromation. Requiring a guild be made, run and proven useful would be a nice prerequisite to any new alliances being made or resurrected too. Think the Dojo - a player initiative that was eventually recognised and given tools etc.

[Muratus del Mur]

8 hours ago, Chewett said:

Would you like me to stop the current work I am doing with alliances in favour of you doing this? Currently I have paused MD work while you worked on NPC talk but you have not spoken to me about this.

The last we talked about alliances you were happy about the changes I was going to make and I had already started modifying the DB for the changes.

I agree some alliances/guilds should be able to be taken over so if your tools are useful to my work I will be able to use them. I am not sure if my plans for how they can be accessed will work with your changes as I do not know what your changes are.

 

Make the tools if you want but please speak with me in the future when you know I am working on something.

i don't think that your plan and mine are in conflict. The one you do is something that applies in a more official way and to all, and the one i am talking about is more of a quest, and totally different to each. A backdoor, because thats what i called this, is something secret, hidden, by definition

 

Go on with your plan, mine will hapen over time, one ally at a time.

[Muratus del Mur]

every backdoor into an ally will come with benefits and sacrifices.

Thinking about how to do this, will bring up important concepts and ways of using a25. For example, i think such a backdoor could benefit from a global counter, to prevent it being used too often, or maybe a check for the ally state, to work only if ally is disbanded...things that do not exist right now, but i will code them, and/or document how its done.

Alliances and guilds should have such backdoors, at least in my opinion.

 

Someone asked, what if i have 100 woodcutting but i am in GG, does that make me a lr citizen? well... that would not be ok, but if you could get lr citizenship, and ally membership, at a cost...lets say it costs you your woodcutting skill to  do this, OR, you keep woodcutting skill but lose all other similar skills? 

The one not joining via an invite, should sacrifice something for this.

This is intended as a sabotaje tool, or for someone that is rejected by that group but fits from a technical perspective with it.

 

My problem is...how to distribute the info on how to access the backdoor? to kings of opposing lands?

 

ps. i am aiming for a self balancing mechanism, not for chaos. Consider such ways to join allies, limited to large time intervals, or by sacrifice, i hope they will be used to conclude tensions that have no way to manifest otherwise. I learned much from past events, disbanding allies without dedicated tools, but by actual treason, is much more hurtful.

[Muratus del Mur]

maybe give the info about the secret path in to all current members of that guild plus two picked by them, that are not part of the guild? the could guard it forever, or not..

[Ledah]

Could make mini quests or leave it scattered around like how to get to GWI.

[Ungod]

3 hours ago, Muratus del Mur said:

maybe give the info about the secret path in to all current members of that guild plus two picked by them, that are not part of the guild? the could guard it forever, or not..

to the king and two others picked by them and ally leader, maybe

3 hours ago, Muratus del Mur said:

This is intended as a sabotaje tool, or for someone that is rejected by that group but fits from a technical perspective with it.

oh, so it's mainly for sabotage...like how policemen get into mobster gangs (or the other way around - the departed >.>)

i just can't see it working without consent from ally members, though...i'd assume the new guy to be booted off by vote pretty soon without some sort of trust gained (and you can't take that option off from them, or you're basically forcing them to accept someone they don't want in their ranks)

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Ungod
grammar

[Jubaris]

I like the idea of 'automated' path to (some*) alliances. But alliances with that feature shouldn't have 'kick member' option, it should simply be 'if these terms are met, you can maintain the badge'. It would solve many social problems we're having around here and I think it would be in line with MD context. 

*I would implement that scenario on a case by case basis. Ideally, I would see this for every alliance, but it's hard to project automated terms for most of alliances outside of guilds. For instance, how to automate Seekers of Enlightenment invite, when it was mostly research based alliance in recent times?

So, implement it for straightforward groups such as resource guilds, and implement it also for other alliances if someone gets an idea that makes perfect sense for his ally. For instance, Knights of the Bell requiring for you to have more MB land loyalty than in other lands + some combat stat requirement + maybe some MB scene visit periodical stat counter, etc.

[Jubaris]

The reason why I like it a lot is mostly for main alliances (such as GotR for LR, Guerrilla for GG, etc.) rather than the guilds which I don't find particularly interesting (but they should definitely be automated). Main allies are closely tied to the land, it doesn't make sense to have a leader based on loyalty stat (which is a nonsensical stat, land loyalty stat is much better) that can kick everybody out (other than the King/Queen, of course, but there are times when the land doesnt have a monarch). Such alliances should last while the land lasts (forever), so it makes sense for those to be automated as well. With some good requirements specific to the nature of the land/alliance to maintain the badge of course. It would be awesome, further increase single player playability of MD, but maybe too much of a fantasy to actually happen

[Muratus del Mur]

land loyalty is indeed a much better stat for this, its something added long after the initial loyalty one.

If chew does the voting thing he was talking about, then maybe these can be combines. Allies with a different entrance mechanism will only be able to kick out members or leaders by majority vote, totally eliminating traditional loyalty stat (just from these)

 

I think that sounds ideal, at least in some cases, 

@Chewett ?

[Chewett]

17 hours ago, Aia del Mana said:

this would be my preferred implementation (unless a different method of rank determination were implemented by Chewett in his changes.)

I have some plans for this.

4 hours ago, Muratus del Mur said:

land loyalty is indeed a much better stat for this, its something added long after the initial loyalty one.

I have some ideas for different "rankings" for alliance leaders, to be specific to the alliance. Its currently in work so I will focus the initial "ranking" in land loyalty, although I am not sure about that as it "fixes" the leader as you cant easily overtake someone.

[Muratus del Mur]

ok, keep us updated:)

All the things i plan are applications of the A25 tools, for alliances, so they can adapt to however the alliances will work.

ps. Its not important how easy it is to overtake a leader, but what you need to do that and what you pay/sacrifice while doing so.

 

[Chewett]

2 hours ago, Muratus del Mur said:

ok, keep us updated:)

All the things i plan are applications of the A25 tools, for alliances, so they can adapt to however the alliances will work.

ps. Its not important how easy it is to overtake a leader, but what you need to do that and what you pay/sacrifice while doing so.

 

The work I will do I will ensure that I make them easy to use functions so can be converted to A25 as needed  

[MRAlyon]

ANOTHER IDEA... and with this I've said all I have to say

[Chewett]

10 hours ago, MRAlyon said:

ANOTHER IDEA... and with this I've said all I have to say

What does this even mean?

[Syrian]

On 8/26/2020 at 12:59 PM, lashtal said:

I would welcome this change as long as it refers to guilds.

Woodcutters, water dowsers, fusioneers... They all seem very much related to a particular skill of "art".

I'm not so sure about alliaces, I prefer what Chew was discussing with some of us.

i would agree with this, normal alliances shouldn't get this backdoor change 

[Muratus del Mur]

8 minutes ago, Chewett said:

What does this even mean?

Probably he means this is just an other ideea that will never come to life. A common missconception due to the huge volume of ideas in md in general.

About "normal" alliances, i think it depends on the occasion, its past, its official vulnerabilities, etc. This could be a tool for a well planned passive storyline, or disaster. Either way, change brings motion, and motion keeps things interesting

[Fang Archbane]

1) I'd love to have a chance to revive the Fusioneers so, personally I'm all for this but I do have personal goals that would benefit from such an action, so the Ego is biased on the matter.

2) I'm all for this idea, I haven't read everything in whole but I read about half and I believe I understand. I support this "backdoor entry via woodcutting" (for example) if those already in the woodcutting guild have the option to veto.

If their qualification is woodcutting at (let's say) 1000, then enough members to make 1000 woodcutting together would be enough to veto said backdoor, assuming they would even be active or want to.

Edit: just wanted to state my opinion before I lost my train of thought, gonna go back and finish reading in full.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Fang Archbane

[Chewett]

On 9/1/2020 at 5:32 PM, Fang Archbane said:

Edit: just wanted to state my opinion before I lost my train of thought, gonna go back and finish reading in full.

What did you think after reading it all?

[Fang Archbane]

I took an extra day just to make sure i could digest it all (sleep is key) So heres my final assessment. I do agree that making any moves is better than making none, so in all honesty im all for it. My Ego has bias of course, but letting go of that i can see potential for much more aid than harm. To be fair, even harm and collisions serve to teach their own lessons so, truly i dont see a downside.

I believe that as long as people care enough about their alliances/guilds to stay active and protect them, then the system you speak of would enable an incentive for activity, and that would pave the way for everything else. I dont know if this means much these days, but this plan and the people behind it have my blessing.

Ill obviously do all i can from GG to aid, but im still getting reacquainted with the new form of MD (just got back from hiatus a few days ago) so i might need some time to adjust, but all in all i absolutely love the direction MD is headed. Its always been very heavily based on the players choices, this just seems to double down on the concept of "A world crafted by the inhabitants".

Edit: I trust your judgement and those of my fellow Inhabitants. I do believe your idea and system as is has an insane amount of merit and potential. I just want to make sure that as you make decisions, you remember my humble suggestion.

A backdoor styled entry shouldnt spark any notifications. Nothing short of checking the alliance in full should allow anyone to notice that anythings changed at all, or that theres any danger.

Maybe small, unrecognized symbols appearing on the Alliance page as a small hint that someones attempting to break in, something easily missed but also easily found once you know what to look for.

Maybe make the Backdoor entry take 3 days in whole (maybe less? 2? a full 24 hours?) so that there is time to get caught, and if so, maybe allow them to veto the backdoor entry by matching/surpassing their "Justification Statistic" (Ie: woodcutting/dowsing/etc).

Edited September 2, 2020 by Fang Archbane