Population Question and Issues.

12467

Comments

  • VivetVivet , of Cows and Crystals
    Some ideas:

    -If you quit a guild (not kicked) without leaving the same org, you will retain your guild rank should you rejoin it. Quitting the org makes your tracked rank reset. This won't fix the problem of people needing to be in elected positions, but it will allow returning org-loyal guild members to have immediate access to rank-restricted privs, like favours. This also means that someone returning can contest without having to be favoured up by people of position who might not be around to do it.

    -Additionally, consider allowing an org-loyal returning guild member (not kicked) to be able to rejoin via denizen, much like newbies. Optionally, if guild leaders could somehow flag people so the denizen will perform this function for them, that might work too.

    -Move GTS access from rank 5 to rank 10. A lot of guilds seem to make aiming for GR5 a tough goal (with GTS access being the supposed reason), and as such I think in a lot of instances hitting GR3 is more convoluted than it needs to be. Encourage guilds to move people up the ranks more frequently so there's fewer people sitting on GR1 and 2.

    And that's about it. It's hard to make suggestions otherwise, since I don't see population issues changing much via mechanical changes so much as by changes in player attitudes and behaviour.
  • KarlachKarlach God of Kittens.
    I think the suggestions Ushaara added would all be great additions to the Covenant system if you're looking for a place to start!

    The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."

    You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!


    image
  • I haven't seen much (any) use of covenant-members' ability to promote novices and guildfavour those on the other side of the guild. Some way to share certain help files (advancement, specifically) between guilds would help with this, as I'm assuming the reluctance to promote/GF comes from an ignorance on the requirements in each case. Of course, I could be wrong about (under)secretaries being able to see these files, but it seemed that this (assumed) inability is a large part of it.
  • It is also an option to copy your guild scrolls onto letters and mail them to your partner guild leader(s) to set up in their own help files so they can better assist novices.

  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord

    Zvoltz said:
    It is also an option to copy your guild scrolls onto letters and mail them to your partner guild leader(s) to set up in their own help files so they can better assist novices.
    That's not a great option.  Every time you make a change you have to get someone else to change the associated scroll(s).
    image
  • Xenthos said:

    Zvoltz said:
    It is also an option to copy your guild scrolls onto letters and mail them to your partner guild leader(s) to set up in their own help files so they can better assist novices.
    That's not a great option.  Every time you make a change you have to get someone else to change the associated scroll(s).
    It's not the best option, but from my experience the guild novice scroll(s) don't change that frequently. I don't think think the 30 seconds to a minute of copy/pasting a help file and buying a letter to mail is a terrible hardship to do once a RL month, if not less. In reality, of the three Hallifax guilds I've looked at, the novice scrolls haven't been updated in between 2 years on the outside and 2 months on the inside.

  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Zvoltz said:
    Xenthos said:

    Zvoltz said:
    It is also an option to copy your guild scrolls onto letters and mail them to your partner guild leader(s) to set up in their own help files so they can better assist novices.
    That's not a great option.  Every time you make a change you have to get someone else to change the associated scroll(s).
    It's not the best option, but from my experience the guild novice scroll(s) don't change that frequently. I don't think think the 30 seconds to a minute of copy/pasting a help file and buying a letter to mail is a terrible hardship to do once a RL month, if not less. In reality, of the three Hallifax guilds I've looked at, the novice scrolls haven't been updated in between 2 years on the outside and 2 months on the inside.
    It doesn't really matter how often they are updated in practice, what matters is that there is extra headache involved- which just makes the whole thing kind of pointless.  Sure, it might only change once in a year.  It might also need multiple updates in a week.  When you write it, there's no way of knowing.  Do you know how often those scrolls were revised when they were first written, for instance?
    image
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    edited August 2013
    Estarra said:
    I mean, if you want to talk about how unreasonable I am or putting on 'band aids' with covenants, etc., you can but I doubt my mind will change on the matter. Take that for what you will!

    ...

    I'd be open to suggestions to tweak covenants or other minor things that are suggested that might help provide some relief, but let's table any big projects that involve re-envisioning or reworking the guild system--it just won't happen any time soon.
    As I think I'm the only one who really referred to covenants as band-aids, I think you missed what I was getting at- covenants (in their current implementation) partially patch the problem but they don't really solve it (hence band-aid).  Tweaks can help address it (things like being able to mark GHELP scrolls as "shared" so that either guild can edit them and both guilds can read them would be really nice.  It would be preferable to yet another separate syntax, to me.), but it won't solve the underlying fundamental problem of Too Many Positions and not enough people for the wide spread we've got.  Enhancing Covenants can help out until more time is available for something more in-depth, though.

    Speaking as someone in a Covenant, I really do like having some more people to interact with and being able to answer some BT questions when they don't have others in their guild around.  I like to think they're happy enough putting up with our somewhat more frequent discussions on matters pertaining to weaponry and the like.

    I'm not disparaging the idea of covenants in general, but saying that there is room for improvement!  Saying it's a "band-aid" is not calling you unreasonable.
    image
  • Estarra said:
    I'd just like to re-emphasize that guilds will not be combined. Lusternia guilds were specifically designed the way they are now (and I am very happy with how they work) and benefits from combining them are greatly outweighed (in my opinion) from the disadvantages. I just do not see this happening so long as I am producer. I mean, if you want to talk about how unreasonable I am or putting on 'band aids' with covenants, etc., you can but I doubt my mind will change on the matter. Take that for what you will!

    That said, I have thought about removing guilds altogether and having their city/commune as their main org. I've also thought about closing guilds (i.e., removing all monks or bards, etc.) or some variation of allowing cities/communes to close guilds on their own (which would require 100% agreement from all council members, including that of the guild in question). However, I do not believe we are at a point where I think that is necessary, not to mention that we do not have any coding resources at this time to take on a major project such as this (for reasons I am sure many of you know).

    I'd be open to suggestions to tweak covenants or other minor things that are suggested that might help provide some relief, but let's table any big projects that involve re-envisioning or reworking the guild system--it just won't happen any time soon.
    I have to ask.

    What meaningful difference would you see between closing a guild and incorporating their skills into a different one?

    I ask mainly because the immediate thought that came to mind when reading that is the organisations that are currently suffering could decide to merely remove all of their guilds, have their abilities controlled on a commune level, which might open people up to easily switching and depending on the individuals views on guilds they could be reconstructed through clans.

    I don't know, maybe I'm misinterpreting but it sounds almost like what some people have actually been asking for except that the option for a more formal sub-organisation (currently guilds) wouldn't be present after removal.
  • Ok so I came in late in this and got the benefit of reading it all the way through.

    IMO guilds serve little purpose other than holding skills and teaching users how to use them. This is something that could be done on a city level.  Any guild RP can related to the skills users can still occur.  In at least one of Mag's guilds this would probably actually assist the users.  Cacophony often lack numbers and I remember my alt being in there and having no support.  I actually got most of my support from Akyaevin who was a mage at the time.

    Covenants work well to help the smaller guilds but it does not remove the feeling you are part of a dead guild. 

    The reality is that the support for using the skills or the guild RP can exist without the structure of a guild.  The guild structure works great when you have the numbers.  It is onerous and limiting when you have a small guild.

    Anyway that I my thoughts.

    image

    06/30/2014 19:37 Silvanus channels the power of the Megalith of Doom for you, stripping you of your Vernal Ascendant status.......bastard!!

  • So, how are we defining small numbers here?
  • I'd define it as small enough that you can have guild leaders that are inactive but not replaced because there simply aren't any replacements. Needs for the other positions vary depending on guild structure. 

    For the Hartstone, I would really like about six secretaries. The number would hopefully offer a decent spread and we can tie it into some stuff with the advancement stuff. Below them some undersecretaries would be good so that they can be learning what they need to eventually be replacements.

    Security/Protector-wise it's a bit different, within the structure they'd serve a purpose as trainers but primarily I think right now the positions exist solely for the privs that they give, so the numbers fluctuate more highly.

    You could be looking at around atleast 10 people in the... management side of the guild before you even start getting to the general membership and at the least I'd want double that as active regulars. (2-3 people around for every official)

    So I guess I'd say 40 active players (decent login lengths, primarily actively participating and engaging with other players, balance between bashing type activities and interaction) , primary players too I suppose as opposed to alts that might pop in once per day. I guess, that's probably the point where you can start building the guild into an organisation rather than a loose collective. 
  • To expand a little... small is a relative thing, it's a perception thing. Logging on regularly to no other guild members, not being able to do things because no one is around, they create the perception that a guild is small.

    Some people also might have a false impression that their guild size is fine because when they look at it the above issues are not present and they are unaware that for large periods of time there just isn't anyone around at all. 

    I think the stats show the Hartstone sitting at around 40-50 members maybe but last I checked, maybe half of those people haven't logged in for two weeks and a few of them are people I know just check in every few weeks or so to see if anything is actually happening. Which makes it harder to specify a number I guess.
  • Yea. I have to pretty much disagree with both Saran and Leolamins here. I've already mentioned the guild RP thing, though.

    As for small guilds, heh. SDs currently have about five people who are regulars. By regulars, I mean they log in almost every day for a decent length of time. There are three others who have recently returned, but I ony see them every so often (and I'm online during a lot of different timezones). Other than that, we have a few novices coming and going and a few GR1/2s.

    Even with such few members, we run just fine. In fact, I'd dare say that out of every guild I've been in, SDs have been the best run. I attribute this to the fact we have three very active, very involved leaders. It doesn't take hours f time to devote to doing 'paperwork.' It takes one or two people to step up, be active, and most importantly, engage people in the guild. Whether its being proactive with novices or advancing guild mates, being sociable on the aethers, or creating RP moments (like rituals, for example) for those members online, the key to making a guild feel strong is meaningful interaction. Much like RP, you can't sit around and wait for things to happen. If you only have three active people in your guild, engage them. Have meaningful, guild-based RP with them on a regular basis. It will not only strengthen your ties to people in the game, but will promote interest in retaining the novices that come and go.

    And if you struggle because your guild doesn't have the RP springboards you 'need,' welcome to the world of making something up that fits your lore. Congratulations, you get the chance to shape the entire future of the guild.
  • ShuyinShuyin The pug life chose me.
    I feel like there's a bit of a circular argument going on when the guild proponents say that the organization itself and not the skills is where the RP is had. So what's stopping you from doing it through another avenue like a clan, similar to the thoughts given by Saran
    image
  • EveriineEveriine Wise Old Swordsbird / Brontaur Indianapolis, IN, USA
    I've thought about that with Shofangi/Serenguard. It could be done. I was arguing against the idea that all RP could be done on a city level.

    Guilds are easy to do it with, though, because aside from the skills, they came ready with a history and purpose, an ideology.
    Everiine is a man, and is very manly. This MAN before you is so manly you might as well just gender bend right now, cause he's the manliest man that you ever did see. His manly shape has spurned many women and girlyer men to boughs of fainting. He stands before you in a manly manerific typical man-like outfit which is covered in his manly motto: "I am a man!"

    Daraius said: You gotta risk it for the biscuit.

    Pony power all the way, yo. The more Brontaurs the better.
  • DaraiusDaraius Shevat The juror's taco spot
    And an advancement structure that (while flawed) gives some players goals to strive for.
    I used to make cakes.

    Estarra the Eternal says, "Give Shevat the floor please."
  • EnyalidaEnyalida Nasty Woman, Sockpuppeteer to the Gods

    Everiine said:
    Guilds are easy to do it with, though, because aside from the skills, they came ready with a history and purpose, an ideology.

    Unless not.
  • EveriineEveriine Wise Old Swordsbird / Brontaur Indianapolis, IN, USA
    Enyalida said:

    Everiine said:
    Guilds are easy to do it with, though, because aside from the skills, they came ready with a history and purpose, an ideology.

    Unless not.
    History, purpose and ideology shouldn't be the problem with the Hartstone. Numbers are the problem, it sounds like--just not enough people. RP-wise, there should be plenty of things to explore.
    Everiine is a man, and is very manly. This MAN before you is so manly you might as well just gender bend right now, cause he's the manliest man that you ever did see. His manly shape has spurned many women and girlyer men to boughs of fainting. He stands before you in a manly manerific typical man-like outfit which is covered in his manly motto: "I am a man!"

    Daraius said: You gotta risk it for the biscuit.

    Pony power all the way, yo. The more Brontaurs the better.
  • EnyalidaEnyalida Nasty Woman, Sockpuppeteer to the Gods
    (I wasn't talking about the Hartstone, I was giving a hard stare more at the monk guilds, and (less so) at the bard guilds.)
  • edited August 2013
    Kio said:
    Yea. I have to pretty much disagree with both Saran and Leolamins here. I've already mentioned the guild RP thing, though. As for small guilds, heh. SDs currently have about five people who are regulars. By regulars, I mean they log in almost every day for a decent length of time. There are three others who have recently returned, but I ony see them every so often (and I'm online during a lot of different timezones). Other than that, we have a few novices coming and going and a few GR1/2s. Even with such few members, we run just fine. In fact, I'd dare say that out of every guild I've been in, SDs have been the best run. I attribute this to the fact we have three very active, very involved leaders. It doesn't take hours f time to devote to doing 'paperwork.' It takes one or two people to step up, be active, and most importantly, engage people in the guild. Whether its being proactive with novices or advancing guild mates, being sociable on the aethers, or creating RP moments (like rituals, for example) for those members online, the key to making a guild feel strong is meaningful interaction. Much like RP, you can't sit around and wait for things to happen. If you only have three active people in your guild, engage them. Have meaningful, guild-based RP with them on a regular basis. It will not only strengthen your ties to people in the game, but will promote interest in retaining the novices that come and go. And if you struggle because your guild doesn't have the RP springboards you 'need,' welcome to the world of making something up that fits your lore. Congratulations, you get the chance to shape the entire future of the guild.

    I feel that you may have missed a point here. I'm not sure about your personal location/log in times, but if you're seeing more than one other person in your guild at the same time regularly, you're potentially in a better position than many others in this game. 

    By the same note, I'd wonder what the perception of the guild is like for those who do not have the benefit of such a log in time.

    I mean, I know that I get messages asking for work arounds so that people can still advance because they don't see anyone else or anyone in a position of adequate authority. This impact on our "paperwork" has a negative effect on our roleplay, it is a chance to interact with people and engage in guild rp and it makes me sad that I am having to consider how someone can do it without a Hartstone present just so they can advance like the others in the guild who simply happen to be fortunate enough to see other players in the guild. Especially considering the final ritual in one of the sections and the meaning that is behind it.

    Also, for the Druids at least being in a small guild sucks horrendously for two reasons... Carving and Mulching.


  • Saran said:

    Also, for the Druids at least being in a small guild sucks horrendously for two reasons... Carving and Mulching.
    QFT. It seems every other day I've got 30+ elders to carve.
  • I'll be blunt.  I agree a small population size is a problem.  However, I think the problem is exaggerated.  Yes, there are guilds that have a smaller than average population, and yes, there are guilds whose members don't see each other often due to timezones.  However, the solution to fixing these problems is not destroying the guilds that do have an active population.

    Frankly, there's really only one way to solve population issues, and it's not condensing the population.  It's expanding the population in general.  We can sit here and complain about how our guilds are small and life sucks, but it's already been said in this thread that guilds aren't going anywhere anytime soon due to concerns of the admin and the combat overhaul.

    So, instead of rehashing the problem sixteen times in one thread, let's try to find some other solutions.

    I'd like everyone to reread Ushaara's post, as I think he hits the nail on the head.  Expand the visibility of covenants and cities/communes and allow covenants a more uniformed area of existence.  Covenant-shared helpscrolls and possibly a newsboard would go a long way, especially if the guilds in each covenant cross-train their secretaries in the lower echelons of each other's advancement routes.
  • Inaryl said:
    QFT. It seems every other day I've got 30+ elders to carve.
    We've all noticed, and we all love you for it.  <3
  • Kio said:
    I'll be blunt.  I agree a small population size is a problem.  However, I think the problem is exaggerated.  Yes, there are guilds that have a smaller than average population, and yes, there are guilds whose members don't see each other often due to timezones.  However, the solution to fixing these problems is not destroying the guilds that do have an active population.

    Frankly, there's really only one way to solve population issues, and it's not condensing the population.  It's expanding the population in general.  We can sit here and complain about how our guilds are small and life sucks, but it's already been said in this thread that guilds aren't going anywhere anytime soon due to concerns of the admin and the combat overhaul.

    So, instead of rehashing the problem sixteen times in one thread, let's try to find some other solutions.

    I'd like everyone to reread Ushaara's post, as I think he hits the nail on the head.  Expand the visibility of covenants and cities/communes and allow covenants a more uniformed area of existence.  Covenant-shared helpscrolls and possibly a newsboard would go a long way, especially if the guilds in each covenant cross-train their secretaries in the lower echelons of each other's advancement routes.

    I feel the need to point out that what you are saying seems to be in line with what some of the people discussing this issue were saying previously only to change their minds over time. (I.e "oh we just need more players" one time, "sigh, it's only getting worse" next time)


    Covenants realistically are pretty much condensing two guilds into one, what you are asking for is pushing this even more in that direction. help scrolls sharing, news boards, more importance, more visibility, all of this reeks of condensing two guilds into one while refusing to accept that this is what is being done.
  • KioKio
    edited August 2013
    What?  It absolutely does not.  More visibility should have been at the start of a covenant.  Frankly, GWHO should show us covenant members online too.  After all, they can advance and favour.

    As for helpscrolls and news boards, I'm not suggesting one for the covenant and that's it.  I'm echoing the suggestion of  COVHELP, similar to CGHELP.  It's just a clerical space for things like advancement and rules.  It reeks of nothing but actually allowing a covenant to do what it was designed to do in the first place.

    There was more, but it started feeling personal, so I erased it.
  • ShuyinShuyin The pug life chose me.
    Ah man, I think we've gone full circle. We're back to "just get more newbies!". I'm not sure that's been working well lately.

    But yeah, I have no idea how people are fine with expanding covenants to be more like merging guilds but are violently against merging them all the way.

    As another thought, I'd also be fine with eliminating/condensing various guild/city positions if we don't have the people for it.
    image
Sign In or Register to comment.