Alliances and Guilds backdoors

[Mallos]

On 8/26/2020 at 9:53 AM, Ledah said:

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.

To build on what Ledah says here and Mur's original idea of backdoors into an alliance, we could give a sort of multi-citizenship/multi-layered alliance. Basically differentiate guilds and alliance, but have them be a part of the same thing. The guilds can be where you gain the backdoor and anyone can get in with no input other than their own actions, if they meet the parameter set they will automatically be invited to join the guild. The alliance would work as they do today, by invite only and are more centered towards land affairs- not tool/resource based tasks or tasks related to the backdoor.

The point is the guild would be a functional subclass of the alliance. The same system, for example, Woodcutters and Guardians of the Root could be the same alliance, but Woodcutters would be the guild inside and under the domain of the alliance Guardians of the Root. All other functions could be the similar to how they work now, such as alliance leaders could kick out alliance and guild members (but maybe not guild leaders), and guild leaders could kick out guild members although guild leaders could not kick out alliance members. Similar invitation premise, except I would suggest that only guild members could invite other guild members, and alliance members could only invite other alliance members, to preserve the backdoor method as the main way into the guild.

I would like to sugggest that you could be a member of multiple guilds, but only one alliance. This way, you can be a tradesman of multiple professions. Guilds would not have citizenship bonuses applied to their members, only alliances would have this.

Edited December 25, 2020 by Mallos

[Pipstickz]

As one of the realm's foremost alliance disbandment experts, I very much approve of this idea for its capability to revive alliances. For resource-based guilds, as many have stated already, a skill requirement makes a lot of sense. For traditional, more roleplaying, alliances a land loyalty (again as many have stated) and roleplaying requirement seems to be a suitable. For example I could see someone earning SoE membership by writing an interesting research paper, or earning military-focused alliance (KoB, GG) membership by challenging a gauntlet of enemies to prove yourself, or earning TW or NS membership by eluding the Necrovion hunters for some days.

The idea of a two-tiered system where earning membership by yourself is less valuable than just being invited seems very odd to me, as putting in the effort to do it yourself should ideally (in my estimation) be more difficult than just convincing somebody to invite you, and therefore offer more benefits, not less.

That being said, I'm not sure I like the idea of a non-invite takeover or disbandment. Disbanding an alliance should be very difficult, and alliances should always remember to clean up their membership rosters (especially during critical moments like a conflict) lest they fall to disenchanted members who feel an alliance isn't meeting its intended purpose anymore.

While I don't personally think one should be able to roleplay or gather their way into disbanding an alliance, I do think one could be able to perform a special group scattering ritual that is non-specific to any particular alliance, but that's an idea of its own and only tangentially related to this one.