Association Dynamics Suggestions

[Serpensio]

As I was thinking how I would start my own Association, I realized some things I think would be nice to see Associations do in the game that would certainly improve the game-play for participants, but have rarely ever (as far as I'm aware) been used, partially, I think, because they require active player commitment in order to happen, and can't simply be programmed as game-mechanics.

In short, there are things I would love to see Associations voluntarily do to enhance the game-play of their members and other players, even though there is no way to enforce them through game mechanics, so the Association would have to consciously choose to do them. They would have to use their own imagination and enforce it through social compacts and player interactions.


Recruitment Quests:
One thing I thought up was requirement quests. If an association would make prerequisite "quests" to be performed before allowing a player to join, I believe it would greatly enhance the fun factor for the new recruit. Something difficult or easy, it doesn't matter, but if it dealt with the purpose of the Association, it would be all the better. For instance, a Thieves Association could require recruits to steal something for them without getting caught, before being admitted; or a Blacksmiths Guild could require a recruit to craft an item of a particular quality before being allowed to join. It could be a series of quests, or just one, but I think all the players would enjoy it if Associations would do this.


Admittance Fee:
For particular associations, membership could require an admittance fee, or regular membership fee. Not only would this help enrich the Association, but it could set a high bar to show off as a "high class" exclusive Association, making it seem more appealing to the players. Since players will be able to join a number of Associations in EoC, these particular Associations could provide a sense of wealth and status to their members, and as long as the Association has some perks and a good reputation, it could be an association in high demand (allowing them to set membership to any price they desire)


Salaries:
One thing that's always bothered me, is how socialist most guilds act with regards to internal economy. Everyone works at the beck and call of the guildmaster and for the good of the guild unit, and the guild provides community and social perks based on the leader's choice, but personal player enrichment is only available on personal time, whenever available. I'd much rather see some bottom-up or company-like Association interaction. Where, the Association members work to enrich the guild, and then the guild pays them a salary for whatever time and benefit they put in.

For instance, generally guild members have soldiers, but they let them run wild doing whatever, until they are called on to battle or a guild contract, which is paid to the guild, and generally stays in the guild "vault" to spend on guild related things like buildings or upkeep. What seemed to occur in MO, is, Soldiers would be at the beck and call of their guild, but their only method of self-enrichment was farming, PKing, or mining by themselves on personal time. Because of this, the players would get quickly bored and tired of having to farm gold.
Instead, I would propose that Associations supply their soldiers or workers with tools, and then pay them a salary based on the profits the Association makes, or, work on a contractual or buy-sell basis and while assuming their workers/soldiers would provide their own tools and labor time, compensate them for any item or service the guild acquires by their hands, as if the guild were purchasing the labor or items instead of requiring them to be donated "for the good of the guild."

I think doing this, would see associations and players profiting greatly, without having to grind for anything or be bored, and provide encouragement for recruits to join your guild instead of another one. It would also provide a larger semblance of realism for all the players, which I'm sure most players notice without actually identifying the source.


Rank Quests:
Besides simply being a trusted or highly contributive member of a guild, if Associations would require particular quests or tasks, or other form of demonstrating ability/trustworthiness, for a member to raise in rank, I think it would greatly improve the sense of Fun and progression an Association member would find as a member of the group. In Theme park games all the quests are canned sets of dialogue, but in a real sandbox the quests need to be provided by the members. And player designed quests are sure to be more exciting and dynamic than NPC driven ones.


Joint Ventures:
Having two or more players pool their resources together in order to afford to form a single expensive company venture that will make investment returns over time, that can be shared between the players to enrich them more (and faster) than they could ever accomplish alone. This one could possibly be facilitated by game-mechanics, but overall, relies on the willingness of the players themselves to accomplish. I believe this would impact the game world for the better, and improve immersion greatly. For instance, there could be a joint venture to finance a mining outpost (and miners), or to finance a ship and trade voyage to another continent, or simply a large trade caravan to a nearby city. Doing this would also put more meaning into the price of items, as company expenses would have to be included into the supply-and-demand-set pricing of local and trade goods.


At the moment this is all I can think of, but if you have any other ideas for improving Association dynamics to enhance gameplay, feel free to share them.

I'm curious how many players would enjoy having Association dynamics like this, and how many Associations actually plan or commit, to include these kinds of social dynamics into their Association structure. They can't work if the players don't take initiative to use them. What do you think of the ideas?

[Dementedelementalist]

Could an association not require these things from already existing systems? In Eve online the corporations (guilds) have their own bank as well as hangars (item vaults). In order to access these you have to be of suffiient rank within the corporation. As far as prerequisite quests and/or craftings, that could be entirely up to the association to choose from quests/items in the game already. Or if not quests per say, some observable action taken by the applicant.

Good ideas but i think that all these things will already be possible through player interaction with no concrete system mechanics to regulate them. If you tell your newbie that he needs to cough up 50g for addmittance then he better give it to you or not be a member of the association.

Though i am still a little uncertain of how these 'associations' will be handled in game. Seems to me they are nothing more than verbal agreements between groups of players.


*edit: re-reading your post it seems that i just reiterated your points and you were in fact asking if people will do these sorts of things regardless of guidelines set by the designers. If thats the case, YES!

[Sizergh]

For associations, I think each one should be like a religion in the Civ series. To set one up you need a building a guild hall or castle, this would make something tangible in the world, allowing your association through its initial building to be susceptible to destruction / looting.

If you build more structures (or capture them) and place them under the ownership of the association. These structures can inherent the hierarchical rule sets of the association, such as rights to open doors/ drop items/ pick up items, and so on without getting flagged / triggering defences or guards. So no hard coded lockouts, just rules to effect the response to your actions.

This inherent vulnerability of an association through its structures should also have benefits. Such as giving members exclusive access to specific services those buildings could offer, such as safe deposit rooms, lodgings, armories, warehouses, stage coaches, stables etc. This would accommodate the efficient running of more complex organizations, such as large tradings guilds, or an organized mercenary service.

Additionally certain buildings, which would have limited practical uses such as churches or shrines, if constructed (or captured) could provide the associations members certain buffs such as reduced Karma penalties, less fall damage, and similar utility enhancements.

The development of an association could then be something much more meaningful than just a guild tab. Certain associations could then, though the infrastructure that they develop become essentially fully fledged civilizations within the context of the game, whereas other associations could be just one little house hidden in the woods somewhere that has a very small but highly specialized alchemy lab, for poisons and such. So by giving players the choice in how much they invest into a particular association can vary the resultant importance and advantages a certain association offers.

In turn this can effect how much members would be willing to pay to join, or how much you would have to pay them to join! I think this would offer a decent start point for players to lean towards developing societies rather than being in a persistent state of continuous pointless killing for the sake of it. As not only is there something for a guild to have that worth building, but also there will be structures that are worth taking, and of course defending. As such there would be made endless variations of player designed and made battlefields.

[Serpensio]

*edit: re-reading your post it seems that i just reiterated your points and you were in fact asking if people will do these sorts of things regardless of guidelines set by the designers. If thats the case, YES!

Yeah, sorry for being confusing, I guess I'd better edit it to be more clear.
Yes, I was asking how many Associations would plan/commit to using these social, non-hardcoded dynamics in their associations, and how many players would like to see them.

For associations, I think each one should be like a religion in the Civ series. To set one up you need a building a guild hall or castle, this would make something tangible in the world, allowing your association through its initial building to be susceptible to destruction / looting.

If you build more structures (or capture them) and place them under the ownership of the association. These structures can inherent the hierarchical rule sets of the association, such as rights to open doors/ drop items/ pick up items, and so on without getting flagged / triggering defences or guards. So no hard coded lockouts, just rules to effect the response to your actions.

Yes I agree with building ownership opening up new hierarchical powers, but Associations in general shouldn't be required to build anything in order to be formed.

I imagine a simple crafters' guild or a nomadic mercenary group not needing any particular buildings, but if you were wanting to build up your own faction, you should have to start out with a town and several specialized building to do so.

Imagine, you're a member of citizen of your starting faction, which has a nobles association for all the rulers, and then a Soldier sub-association, a Navy sub-Association, several crafters' associations, a gentleman's club, and Adventurer's guild, Miners, Farmers, Several Local Merchants' companies, and several sub-associations of some of those sub-associations, with others weaving in-between several.

But this thread is about Player-made Social Dynamics within Associations, not Association game mechanics.

[NizeGuy]

It would be really cool if the game had these kind of tools for associations.

[Serpensio]

Well, the point of the thread though is that there are no "tools" that can be hardcoded to facilitate this, it's purely something Association leaders have to decide for themselves to do and then enforce it socially. And if there were hard-coded mechanics, it would take away from the social nature of the dynamics themselves.

Which is why I'm asking if association leaders would actually be up for doing this sort of thing, and polling the popularity of the idea with the general players. I'm hoping there are enough players that want it that association leaders would consider doing it. And that Association leaders would take the effort to enhance the gameplay for everyone by doing so.

[NizeGuy]

Well, the point of the thread though is that there are no "tools" that can be hardcoded to facilitate this, it's purely something Association leaders have to decide for themselves to do and then enforce it socially. And if there were hard-coded mechanics, it would take away from the social nature of the dynamics themselves.

Which is why I'm asking if association leaders would actually be up for doing this sort of thing, and polling the popularity of the idea with the general players. I'm hoping there are enough players that want it that association leaders would consider doing it. And that Association leaders would take the effort to enhance the gameplay for everyone by doing so.

Why do you think it will take away from the social?

When i say they should have the tools, its something like this: Why not let the leader create tasks\quests that players can accept from within the game?

How will the leader actually know the recruit traveled distant lands to get some rare flower, but instead just bought it, if its not hardcoded? If the leader can never be sure, then why bother?

Eventhough its hardcoded or a mechanic in game, leaders can still choose to enforce or not.

[Serpensio]

Because there should always be the option for the player to "game" the system if it's available. If the leader wants to ensure the player did exactly as told, he can send an accompaniment, which could also be fun for that second player as well. And if it could be just as easily have been gamed, perhaps the Leader should rethink the parameters of the quest.

[Nefastus]

Although some of the ideas you have listed have already been in use in Enclave and other clans I've been associated with, I won't be placing over the board requirements such as quests or fees. The biggest requirement for any successful clan should be common gaming and social standards. Having a clan consisting of heavily competetive and oragnised mature guys, and allowing some raging youngster with ADHD to join simply because he did some quest, or adds another number to the roster, simply does not work and will only destroy the clan from the inside out.

[master]

Although some of the ideas you have listed have already been in use in Enclave and other clans I've been associated with, I won't be placing over the board requirements such as quests or fees. The biggest requirement for any successful clan should be common gaming and social standards. Having a clan consisting of heavily competetive and oragnised mature guys, and allowing some raging youngster with ADHD to join simply because he did some quest, or adds another number to the roster, simply does not work and will only destroy the clan from the inside out.

Whats wrong with ADHD?

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______

I don't mind systems like this ingame. i'd rather associations be more social than anything else [economic, pvp, etc.] but its up to the players who are in them.


that said the tools I think are completely nessessary is a title/permission system which could be customised and a management tools which those permissions access. stuff like voting rights. who owns what. etc. etc.