Things To Add/ Improve About Guilds

Custom Guild ranks.

Want to promote someone to Captain so that they can war BUT don’t want them to be able to promote people to Recruiter?

Nope, you can’t do that.

Want to promote someone to Chief BUT don’t want them to kick your whole guild?

Nope, can’t do that either!

Let Guilds create their own custom guild ranks with specific permissions to choose from for each rank.

________________________________

Just saw that electro posted the same thing lol

 

This isn't Hypixel :)

 

would be cool if this is implemented by some sort of crafting system, one where level isn't grinded, but based on the guild level, and ingredients are really rare but powerful as the whole guild can look for them

 

with the current way guilds are run, I don't think many people would go for that

________________________________

I would be a VERY rich man :)

________________________________

I think the reason the CT is doing this is so they can get ask for our input on something since they completely disregarded it with the shit new item update that's coming out tbh

________________________________

OI leave guild hopping alone, that's like 90% of my personality. I enjoy being in Imp and Fox and moving to other guilds to help, and this is actually not about sub guilds for those of you that might be suspicious for whatever reason.

 

Forums with phone be icky, but I’m directly referencing the decay part.

I know this is probably a suggestion that’s direclty referencing subguilds which is a problem lego’s idea would fix but this also hinders people who actually genuinely want to join a different guild and deter people from actually leaving their guilds ever in the first place. And I can speak for the administrative side of things - adding a cooldown would make my job a thousand times more complicated in trying to keep track of accepted applications and newcomers to the guild

 

Add the pvp feature back, I was enjoying stomping noobs ;-; just realised this is the wrong thread for that

 

I actually LOVE @Irony 's idea about random bounty territories! It would match well with the mini-quest signs scattered around Wynn. Perhaps the two could be on the same "Quest/Bounty" sign? I would honestly find it so much fun to hunt for bounty territories! (They could add a little extra to the FFA world)

However as already mentioned by many, I wholely disagree with adding cooldowns for joining guilds as well. It would make healthy collaborations such as the Valkyrie Exchange Programme impossible, as well as generally hinder genuine guild-hoppers. Guild-hoppers are some of the most fun, experienced, and kind players to have in your guild, even though they only stay for a little while.

 

Co-owner rank plz

(:

You could also make set price restrictions on defenses, to prevent any bank trolling issues

 

It being purely based on level would make it hard to get a new guild off the ground though. My personal change to your idea would be to instead make member count a factor. Not perfect either, but you're always gonna have some problems.

 

You guys all made some very good points about the 'rejoin decay' I mentioned, I didn't consider that guild hopping would be a common thing people do so I gave it some more thought and perhaps a new feature in regards to that could potentially fix it. After thinking about it even if there was a cooldown several days of waiting would be annoying and maybe something like 6-12 hours would do the job. If Wynncraft officially supported an Alliance system that allowed several guilds to join together and form sort of a 'mega-guild' that would allow players to swap between them without a cooldown if the guilds they're hopping between are in the same alliance. This could potentially introduce even cooler possibilities such as an 'alliance chat' (Similar to guild chat but a place that includes all players from all guilds within an alliance) that would help with communicating during war sessions and just general conversation between several guilds.

Although there could be some potential problems that could arrive from this which includes a guild forming an alliance with several subguilds of itself and freely allowing them to swap members between them. (Also the consolidation of territories because of too many guilds being in the same alliance) A step towards trying to prevent something like this would to only allow a guild to join a single alliance at any given time so if a guild joined an alliance with several subguilds of itself then it would be more obvious.

Some extras would include having the name of an alliance displayed above the guild banners that are found in territories in order to give new warrers an idea of whether that territory is owned by an enemy guild or an alliance guild and if they should be attacking it or not.

 

Hello, I actually have another 2 suggestions:

Disallow the ability to place mobs after the timer of a guild about to attack the territory (ex. if u attack a territory and it said that there's only 10 mobs, then you should be expecting to fight 10 mobs, not 990+ mobs added to the territory after you started the countdown to attacking it)

Increase the rewards for fighting specific mobs after raiding the territory. For example you should not be earning like an emerald per level 100 mob, higher. Same goes for all the other mobs that aren't fillers and bosses.

Tell me what you thought :)

 

gUilD houSiNg
because its a completely original 9001iq idea

 

Kinda just gonna say some ideas above that I agree (and I think should be added) with and what I think of ideas, because people agreeing with ideas are generally good for those ideas:
Co-owner rank - Often, such as in my guild, more than 1 person are in charge at the top, but have to have chief rank instead of something that distinguishes them as having equal or near-equal power of the owner.

Custom ranks - Would prevent spies from joining to do stuff like kicking guys en-masse, and also just really dumb captains/chief who somehow got captain/chief... I think it should be added.

Price restrictions on defence - Would stop new captains from accidentally fucking up, and even people higher up. I think it should be added.

Custom mobs/"crafting" mobs - Would make mobs more interesting, and guild levels more useful, but in a good way. I think it should be added.

Guild vaults - I like this as something to just make sharing between the guild better and again, add slightly more depth to guilds. I think it should be added.

Runescape clans collection - This would make all the excess resources you get when levelling up professions more useful, but to a varying degree depending on the contribution cap. As things are, we get a lot of excess materials when levelling up gathering professions. Anything to make them more useful and I'm happy. I think it should be added.

I do not agree with letting guilds attack more than one territory. It would be too powerful and I don't at all see how it would discourage subguilding. If anything, it would make subguilding more overpowered because lots of subguilds could attack more than one territory at once and therefore a group of guilds could perform a wipe/clean sweep on a big guild in literally minutes. It makes it extremely hard for defending guilds because those guilds would have to respond incredibly fast to have any hope. Really fast. I think subguilding will always be a problem unless rule 18 is actually enforced. Well, even then you'd have some guys subguilding but only very few instead of how it is right now. It also may defeat the purpose of rule 18 because rule 18 is assumedly there to make sure it's not too easy for one guild, or that one guild is too overpowered. This also hinders the growth of new guilds because all their territories can be taken from them in under 10 minutes, so if they do anything except attack like one territory then there's no hope for them. I know some of y'all might be saying that I'm acting like it's biased towards attackers when a group of high-levelled guilds are launching an attack but it's biased towards defenders when low level guilds are attacking. The latter is true because low level guilds can only attack one territory but defending guilds (the bigger guilds with lots of terrs and who are high levelled) can attack multiple, so either the low levels stay on one territory the entire time or get crushed. The former is true because a group of attacking guilds could have, I dunno, 10+ wars going on at once. Generally takes eight minutes or less from start of one war to start of another, being pessimistic. So those guilds could wipe a huge guild or group of guilds in no time, certainly not enough time for the defenders to respond. As the suggestion is right now I don't think it should be added. I think it would be best balanced if the war cap was two wars at once for each guild, and if they enforced rule 18 at the same time. Not that I'd support it much if it was a cap of two wars at once but that the same time I do understand "rewarding" higher level guilds and making it easier to use their potential in wars, but anything beyond two is, in my opinion, too much.

I sort of agree with the suggestion about war achievements. I think they'd be good if they gave things that weren't money because I don't want more inflation within the economy. But in the grand scheme of things this wouldn't really be huge inflation if they're well balanced.

I guess it'd just be a good idea to add more things that make guilds more complex instead of just basic warring being the only real feature that they bring. If you could add some things to just make guilds more interesting that'd be good. I believe a lot of them are listed above. I think that would particularly be present in achievements (if implemented correctly), custom mobs, the resource contribution suggestion and guild vaults.

 

Since warring is a big aspect of guilds, I think that some effort should go into making wars more interesting. I don't have nearly as many wars as some more prominent members in the warring community, but after ~300 wars I've yet to go up against a 22k defense, and only once did I go up against a full level 100 defense. The other 299 times have been spamming bomb arrow to instantly kill as many worthless level 50 mobs as possible, and the only actual difficulty in wars is trying to get the most mobs killed. When two or more guilds go to war against each other, it literally boils down to which group of people is willing to spend more time/stay up longer playing minecraft, and this is not only very boring, but actually quite taxing as well. Here are some suggestions I have to make wars at least a little more interesting:

1: Increased mob spawn rate:

Currently, having more than 3 people in the same war at once is basically useless. This is the main reason why every guild has to use subguilds, because if a guild has an online warring team of more than 3 people, it's just a waste. Mob spawning rate should scale with players and not stop at 3. In order to save peoples' computers, the rate at which mobs spawn should have diminishing returns, but having ~5 people in a war should be viable (and if combined with guilds being able to war for multiple territories at once, subguilds would basically become obsolete; and it would add another level of tactics to wars, as distributing your players to territories would be an important factor in strategy)

Additionally, the rate at which mobs are killed should influence the rate at which they spawn at. (For example, I just finished a 1k filler war on my own, and at 10+ points during the war, there were 0 mobs alive, because I was killing them faster than they were spawning; war mobs should spawn faster when they are killed faster)

2: Better mob diversity and consolidated prices:

Currently, putting an actual defense on a territory is expensive and un-sustainable. Why would you spend 4k emeralds to leave a level 100 defense when you can spend 1.5k emeralds and it takes the same amount of time? This leads to the extreme majority of wars being the exact same defense over and over again: the same 1 thousand level 5o mobs. I suggest that as a guild increases in level, the price to recruit higher level mobs decreases. The baseline cost of a defense would still be ~1520 for 1000 level 50 mobs; but a level 80 guild could put 1k level 100 mobs for ~2000 emeralds (for a low level guild that just unlocked those mobs, they would cost the amount they do now). This would add another reason for guilds to level up, and would make it so that warring against the highest level guild in the game isn't the exact same as warring against a level 20 subguild.

As for mob diversity, I like the aforementioned idea of custom mobs alot. It would add an identity to every guild, and just be a fun mechanic. This would help the monotony of wars. Additionally, the price of mobs that literally no-one uses should be in line with rangers/mercs/etc., so that if you're just going to leave 1k level 50 mobs, at least it's equally as viable to change it up every once in a while.

3: (Such an unpopular opinion idk why I'm even writing about it) I think guilds should be able to actively defend territories with PvP.

This is definitely going to be a controversial statement, but I think it should at least be considered for testing. Here's how it would work:

When a guild attacks a territory owned by another guild, a message pops up that that territory is under attack (this is already in the game). However, instead of the defending guild just sitting there waiting for the territory to be taken, they can try to enter the territory before the war starts. When the war starts, any players in the defending guild that were in the territory also get teleported to the war world (however, to make it more fair, the maximum defenders would be equal to the amount of attackers from the attacking guild. Therefore, a smaller guild with a single warrer could never be 10v1'd in a war, as long as they are on the offense. Defenders would be randomly chosen if there are more of them than attackers).

Both parties have 30 seconds before PvP is enabled and mobs spawn. In order to succeed in their attack, the attackers only have to defeat all the mobs. (But not all the players; so if a guild defends with only 10 mobs, the attackers only have to kill the mobs and then the War/PvP will end). If all the attackers are killed, they lose the war, and the players that failed the war go into a cooldown (They can't attack the defending guild for another X minutes). If a defender is killed in the war, they cannot defend against the guild for another X minutes.

This means that a guild can actually be defeated in a war, if all of their online players lose their soul points, or just keep going into cooldown against the attackers (and visa-versa)

However, in order for this to work, some adjustments would have to be made to PvP. Other MMORPGs (like The Division 2) set a PvP damage modifier, where players only deal a percentage of their damage to other players. This number could be tweaked in order to make PvP last longer than it currently does, but not make tank builds entirely invincible. It would definitely require extensive testing, but these would be the payoffs:

-Guild wars would not only be much more interesting, but also actually require skill and team coordination
-Having a min-maxed war build would actually matter, and would be something players would have a reason to play the game and work towards
-Guild wars would not only be based on who is willing to put in more hours; but rather based on skill and team strategy
-More classes/builds would be viable in wars; and having teams of players with builds that synergize with each other would actually matter
^ -There would be a reason not to only use archer in wars
-Putting high level defenses would be viable (A lot of people can solo a 22k, but can they solo a 22k with a player also hurting them? That would be a true test of skill)

 

if you could freely hop between guilds you're allied with I'd be more open to that idea, but I'm still not 100% on that one doggy

 

*Cracks Knuckles* Here we go, in a concise manor, ( FYI, terri = territory in this post ) ( I also give credit, aside from myself, to the other fellow members I chatted with before this post came to life )

As I actually thought about it, ultimately, is there any major reason to capture a terri other than either for bragging rights, actually capturing it for the xp it gives to your guild, or just showing off you're a sub-guild? Exactly! ..maybe. So here, why not make an incentive for guilds of all sizes to actually get involved in taking terri's via..

Reductions and Bonuses to things! Like, a price reduction in potions of a town that happened to be on the terri you owned! Or an emerald bonus from junk merchants (per say, example) if you owned the terri they had set up their shop on! Perhaps even, per say you owned the terri, if you were gathering in that terri you could gain xp bonus for it, or even, territories could give a natural xp bonus to just whacking mobs!

Excuse that paragraph or a run-on sentence. Of course not everything from my comment should be added, nor does any of it need to be, though I find a serious lack of reason to take a territory other than for bragging rights, admitting you're a sub guild with that "1 mob for 10 emeralds" shit, and just taking it to level your guild. I feel like this would really add on to a viable reason to explore the map and find neat places that offer benefits. On top of that, hypothetically speaking everything I posted came to life, it would definitely shake the current territories to guild ratio. I'd imagine warring would become much more active across all types of guilds.

Please keep in mind, every single time I mention "xp bonus" that is incredibly subject, ofc I don't mean +50% bonus, no, if I had to say, overall, a 10% bonus may do. (To prof gathering, xp bonus).

 

this sux

just kidding

 

I disagree with this. The solution is elsewhere. We would not need to be able to start multiple wars nor needs to use sub-guilds in the FIRST place if they just made having more players in a war actually beneficial.

This is just like how we use sub-guilds as the current solution. Sub-guilds in which we use to complete multiple wars at once would not be necessary if having more players in a war was actually an advantage.

Thus, I understand where you are coming from, however I think the problem should be tackled directly. If having more players in a war was made beneficial rather then how it is now, it would not be necessary.

________________________________

And everyone who is upset about the use of sub-guilds, they are sadly essential because right now having more players in a war is barely effective, as you can have twice the number of people warring then another guild and still be warring at the same pace. I do not agree in adding multiple wars per guild, that is basically just making a different "solution" then sub-guilds besides ACTUALLY tackling the real problem which would be making having more players in a war much more beneficial, then sub-guilds and more wars per guild would not be necessary.

 

i dont really see any way to make having more people in one war, a better solution than just allowing guilds to do more than one war at once

currently you can cap the mob spawning in wars with 3 people. sure you can make it so mob spawning caps at lets say 10 instead of 3, even still one guild with 10 people would get outpaced by 2 guilds with 3.

 

You should consider the huge drawback of your idea which is lag. I know a few people who endure huge lag spikes during tougher defenses (and the mob spawn rate caps at 3 people only). If this cap was unlimited, you could imagine what a massive overkill would it be if 10 people joined at once! I personally lag even when we are more than 5 in war, regardless the defenses. I wouldn't, and I'm fairly sure a lots of people wouldn't miss not having to deal with twice as much mobs spawning than at our current cap if it means our computers wouldn't faint.

It's common sense when you design a game you must consider that not everyone who will play it has the strongest PC in the world, therefore you have to make it as light as possible while still trying to go for the best outcome. If it doesn't meet any of those two requirements, you'll have to find an alternative way. If there is no alternative way, you might have to stick to the original plan or just discard the idea completely.
In this case, however, there exists an alternative way that perhaps might be both lighter and have a better outcome, and that's to allow multiple guild wars at once.