Due to a recent major battle happening in EVE, I get reminded that said game exists. Which led my thoughts to when Goonswarm couped Band of Brothers and had one of its leaders terminate the corporation outright. Because he had the power to forcefully disband the corporation, alliance and everything... at the push of a button. Now EVE is made like that to encourage drama and such. But I get the feeling that City of Titans... will not be. And SHOULD not be.
But that leaves the obvious question. What should a Leader be able to do? I mean the obvious stuff like recruit new members, kick members, set team colors, access the base builder and so on are given. But should a Leader be able to outright kill a supergroup? And should the Founder have any exclusive ability that he and he alone can do? At the risk of said Founder ceasing to log in for an extended period, crippling the group?
There's also the matter of ranks with different abilities, but city of Heroes did that quite well with the ability to customize these. Wouldn't mind having the ability to grant special rights to a single payer, though. Like the designated base builder, because she is mad awesome at building bases.
Also, when should a group cease to exist? When the last member quits? Or does it need some kind of kill-swtich?
Personally, I kind of like how City of Heroes did it, to an extent. The was a super.leader who had all the powers, but he could give lower ranks any and all of the powers if he wanted to. But if he went offline for a while, he lost the superleader status. I would like a way to designate an order of succession, though. Who ended up superleader was a bit random at times.
I think they should be able to perma-kill characters of members who get 'uppity'. /notkidding
___________________________________
[i]....Fly me to the moon and let me play among the stars...[/i]
It will be interesting to see how the whole supergroup thing is presented in this game. I have to agree CoH handled leadership about as well as you could with the possible exception of succession. I had bigger issues as CoH matured with why someone would want to be just a member of an SG at all. To contribute prestige so somebody else could build a decorative base? It seemed to me that once raids failed the CoH game design (private chat channels, O-portals, personal storage, ad hoc TFs etc.) was intentionally moving to make SGs completely unnecessary (at best a social club and at worst a form of leadership elitism). Shame because SGs certainly fit with the genre.
Yes, I definitely think that any aspect of 'guilds' should be evaluated as to their function in the game's mechanics.... not just it's lore (and expectation lag from mmo's in general)
if guilds don't serve a valid function mechanically.... then I'd suggest making them something similar to COX's 'titles' system mixed with 'sticker trading'... where you basically establish an aesthetic, and anyone who wants in on that jam, can ask to join and have access to that 'look'...
and when you dress up in that look, you're 'in your avenger's costume' and have a title listed under your name in game...
___________________________________
[i]....Fly me to the moon and let me play among the stars...[/i]
Supergroup leaders know the power of the Dark Side.
What, 9000?
Supergroup leaders have power enough to know the name and use of any artifact.
Supergroup leaders have no rivals. No man can be their equal.
If you have to ask how much power, you can't afford to place one in your base.
Supergroup leaders have powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.
Ideally, I'd like the Supergroup to be something that isn't just a cult of personality focused no one founder. It should be more a group of Founding Members (plural) with others that are not founding members. Ideally every right or privilege ought to be decided by voting I would expect, with the founding members getting to vote and everyone else not. This causes problems when founding members fall of the face of the earth and don't tell anyone though. Ideally, you could also allow cross-membership (one hero is a member of two or more different SGs, like when The Beast was an Avenger and an X-Man, etc). To make the decisions more streamlined though, there could be a mechanic where one member get's promoted (by vote) to "Chairperson" or "President" and then has command of a lot of the decisions that an individual could make without having to vote on everything all the time. There would also need to be a mechanic in place to be able to depose (by vote) any sitting Chairperson in case of abuse.
I would also like it to be set up such that being in an SG is fun and encourages more teaming with the SG members, but not in a way that punishes the individual for soloing or punishes the SG for having members that like to solo more than team up. SG bases need to have fun cool things in them that attract members, like teleporters, vault storage for stuff, a hospital TP option like CoH had, etc It would be cool of the SG founders could write AE missions for the SG to do, and hopefully not end up being an abusive grindy powerleveling farm-fest. You could even write SG members into those missions as NPCs, as in "Rescue Radiac from the clutches of the Evil Professor Leadface" or whatever. Then when they free "me" my NPC version helps them fight the end boss or whatever. The SG could have a "Supercomputer" or "Trouble Alert" system that gives you missions like the Radios or Newspapers in CoH, but maybe more tailored to your SG's overall preferences or "flavor" if such exists. There definitely needs to be a "Training Room" where you can PVP against other members, the environment, or whatever. If Arena-style PVP already exists, this might be redundant, but it would still be flavorful.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Supergroup Leaders should have the power to send an invitation to an offline character.
Supergroup Leaders should be able to promote (and demote) members that are offline.
Supergroup Leaders should be able to designate a successor - however, there should also be a way for active players to inherit and even pass the 'star'.
Supergroup Leaders (and Devs/CS) should have a way to send messages/email to all players in the SG, especially in case of SG/character inactivity.
That's what I can think of right now.
Be Well!
Fireheart
Yes these were among main things that CoH lacked when it came to supergroup leader capabilities. Of course like all other privileges these would be fully controllable by the top "star" ranked leader. I firmly believe when CoH introduced the single top ranked "star" leader it solved many more problems than it caused, especially when it was kept in-check by CoH's system of auto-demotion for inactivity.
One other power I think the top star leader should have is the ability to rename the supergroup if necessary. In the latter years of CoH there were many SGs that were "inherited" by people who were not the original founders of the SG who had long since left the game. Being stuck with a potentially bad and/or silly name sucked when you otherwise had a large established SG worth millions of Prestige. I'd propose that a SG name could only be changed this way once every 30 days to ensure that people wouldn't just whimsically rename them every 5 minutes but still allow well-intentioned people to make what would likely be a very rare/single change whenever they needed to.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I hope the phrase "...worth millions of prestige" has no meaning in Titans.
___________________________________
[i]....Fly me to the moon and let me play among the stars...[/i]
Supergroup Leaders should get a substantial +ACC/+RES/+DEF/+DMG bonus to encourage people to become supergroup leaders!
For what it's worth I was never too thrilled about the entire concept of Prestige - mostly because it was a sad reminder of the failed SG base raiding system. Had SG bases been primarily geared for PvE then Influence/Infamy probably would've worked well enough for them.
But even if CoT manages to totally drop Prestige as a currency I'd still like top "star" SG leaders to be able to rename SGs with the limitations I described.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Wouldn't that only encourage players to create solo SGs for each and every character so that all of their characters would get those bonuses? We'd be left with every character being a SG founder and no one willing to join anyone else's SG because they'd lose out on those bonuses.
I realize you meant well with this suggestion... I just don't think it would help out the way you thought.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Wonder if there will be mixed alignment (hero, villain, all in between) SGs or if the whole leadership (and membership) versus alignment will go down like CoH.
While I doubt that all players would do that, the suggest was more of a joke :p Though I'd be curious to see just how many people did do it.
I get the feeling that CoT's alignment system will be less rigid when it comes to forcing top SG leaders to remain either "blue" or "red".
It seemed like CoH wanted to maintain the theory that a SG, when created, would always be fixed as either a blue SG or a red SG so when a top leader made a full alignment shift they were considered traitors to the SG and forced to lose their top rank. That's a reasonable assumption, but it didn't account for the idea that the entire SG as a group might have wanted to "change sides" thus making it completely feasible for the top leader to go rogue and still retain leadership of the SG.
It could be that forcing the top leader to lose leadership upon alignment change was some kind of holdover from the failed SG base raiding system so maybe the CoH Devs were effectively forced to make it work that way because it was too far baked into the twisted code. In any event I hope they let top SG leaders switch to any alignment they want to without losing leadership in CoT. It should be up to the players (not the game) to decide if they care about their leader switching sides and handle it accordingly. Something like that could easily be used as an optional RP plot point for those players who care about that kind of thing (i.e. "Oh no, Captain Virtuous has turned evil! I'm not going to stay in his SG!).
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Well there's always the "min/maxers" who would probably do it along with pretty much all the serious PvPers. Then of course there's always plenty of anti-social types who wouldn't want to join an open group with a bunch of other people to begin with. ;)
On a slightly more serious note they might think about giving characters a tiny bonus for just being in a SG (at any rank) as a means to encourage more people to either join or make new SGs in general.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I had my own VG and SG. A solo base was totally worth having just as a travel hub/storage locker/crafting center. Especially before you could email INF/items and they streamlined the trains.
I wouldn't say the base editor was fun, but I did enjoy the end result of having a nice custom base.
And yeah inviting offline alts would be a godsend.
Well, this has wandered somewhat away from OP question, and I'm afraid I'm not going to help the situation. As regards the OP, I think CoH handled it fairly well, with the exceptions already stated. I would add that beyond the Uber Leader, there should be a required position of 2nd-in-Command. Basically a designated successor so that if the Leader gets bumped for inactivity, the computer doesn't have to figure it out by seniority or something.
I've said in another thread somewhere that I don't have a problem with a mechanic along the lines of "prestige". But, there are a few caveats:
It should be something that SG members earn kind of automatically just by playing the game.
It shouldn't be something you have to trade off for your own XP or money earning.
It's just a measure of how active the members of the SG are. It's not a currency that means anything anywhere else in the game. If your SG is large and active you can get more stuff. Seems pretty straight-forward to me. And if you have a smaller group, but want to upgrade the base through the Cash store, why not? However, I also believe that most non-functional/decorative items should be free. I also think the size of your base should reflect the size of your membership roster, but the functioning items should be affordable for smaller groups.
Here's another idea that springs from some other suggestions. What about for every member of your SG on your mission team, each member gets a small (let's say 1%, for easy math) bonus to DEF? This represents "training together", and "watching each other's back". So if you're on an 8 person team of all SG mates each member of the team gets +8% DEF. If you're on a mixed team, say 3 SG mates and 2 others. Every SG member on the team gets +3% DEF.
This gives an incentive to join a Group and play with SG members, but it's not a game changer.
Thing is from what I've read the CoT Devs are doing their best to allow for "personal bases" which'll be separate from SG bases. This'll allow people to have both their own private "bat caves" as well as letting them be free to join a SG at the same time. The CoH workaround of a "one person SG" to get a private base might not be necessary in CoT assuming private bases will be functional enough.
Again we'll have to see if CoT personal bases are as customizable as CoH SG bases were to see if they'll be a complete substitute for needing a solo-member SG to have a "private" base.
This was easily the top suggested suggestion for SGs in CoH. If CoT doesn't address this in some form or fashion they'll be a bunch of unhappy campers out there.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Just stating my preference.
I hope the SG model to be a social tool that CAN be used for roleplayers but is not specifically a role-play tool. If players want to congregate Social UI they should be allowed to regardless of their "alignment". Sure some may be more violent.. some less lawful.. etc. There's no reason to segregate hero from villain if it means separating the player base.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Personal unofficial opinion.
I would like to see the ability to be part of multiple SGs. I wouldn't mind a prestige equivalent, but that is on the character until he irrevocably donates some or all of it to SG(s) of his choice.
The leader should have control over all aspects of the SG although I'd expect a lot of privileges to be delegated in many groups.
SGs were useful for new players in CoH, and I know quite a lot who used SG storage and TPers for a while then built their own base (one character gleemailed all the loot to store in the shared base while the others earned prestige to build their own).
I like the idea of being able to nominate a second-in-command to take the leadership should the leader be flagged for inactivity.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Well, regarding SG bases, as I pointed out in another thread, the starting point is: "What is the point of base raiding?" In CoH, it was supposed to be about obtaining items of power or something. I'm not sure, really. But you have to have some idea of the point of the exercise before you can start making sense of the design concepts and limits imposed on base design.
That said, and getting back to the original topic, I'd like it if the SG leaders could set finer-grained base editing privileges. Many SGs would love the ability to give some of their members an "office" of their own in the base, which they could customize however they see fit, without giving them the power to edit the entire base.
Along with this, if there's any analog to "prestige", I'd like it if purely decorative items were zero cost. As for limiting things so that the base doesn't take five seconds a frame to render, I'd encourage a system similar to the "filesize" limits that the old AE editor used. So complex objects can "cost" a lot more than simpler ones, and the devs can use this to help keep frame rate performance sane.
But what about the non-decorative stuff, that actually does things? Honestly, I wouldn't favor a prestige point pool system as much as I'd favor a "project" system such as that used in Star Trek Online, where to build, say, a vault, an SG leader (or anyone else with permission) can start a "project" to build it, and SG members can contribute resources to it. These resources should be things that are useful in-game, not things from a "crafting loot" category that aren't useful for anything else. Further, the top three (or five or whatever) contributors get credited for the item (visible in the "Get Info" box for the item, or equivalent).
Building on Minotaur's comment, I'd like to see the ability to set a "chain of command" that was as large or small as the leadership saw fit. Because sometimes it all goes to hell and the Secretary of Education has to step up to the plate. (I was in an SG that had a huge problem because almost all seven leaders got bored and walked away at about the same time. We got lucky that the seventh was willing to stay around long enough to hand over the reins.)
Definitely would like to see multi-SG membership, though that was traditionally prevented because sometimes someone would leech one SG's resources to another.
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
Frankly, I saw the point of base raids a heck of a lot more clearly than I saw the point of belonging to an SG after raids collapsed. It was for a supergroup buff... a reason to belong to an SG in some capacity other than as leader. When raids disappeared (regardless if your reaction was "good riddance" or "bummer") so did much of the reason for supergroups. In many ways you were much better off using the growing list of alternative tools the devs were making available in CoH as I mentioned above... or just building a solo base (which was, by definition, abandoning the supergroup concept).
Believe it or not I am not married to the idea that we have base raids. My intent everywhere in this forum was to illustrate that base raids were dev design gone wrong... and the players suffered because of that design. So what is design gone "right"? I really thought GhostHack's comment of "guilds should be evaluated as to their function in games mechanics" and Lin Chiao Feng's "point of the exercise before making design concepts" are critical points.
It looks like we are going to have both private lairs and multiple player bases in CoT by design. So what is the distinction? And what does belonging to a supergroup going to get you? I realize this is beyond the scope of just an SG leader's powers... it's even more important than that subject.
Looks like topics I make have a habit of doing that. It's kind of funny. And, well, it's not like threads tended to stay focused in CoH, anyway.
And yes, I suppose the point of supergroups will need to be found before we can think up what kind of power a leader should have. I used my SG in CoH kind of as a social hub, and a neat base with teleporters. But, really, if it wasn't for the base, we could have done with just the global channel.
One thing I do wonder is if founders should ave any special privileges? I'm leaning towards no, I'd rather SGs being living things, so if the old guard stops playing, but the new blood want to stick together, they won't lose any abilities or similar when the leader position goes to one of them. I know some SG are made out of ego (It's MY guild! And everyone in it are mine to command!), but frankly, I'd rather have a system that doesn't outright support this kind of behavior. Not meaning that solo SGs shouldn't be a thing, by all means, do have that.
But I suppose the real question to answer is "Why do we even want guilds or similar?" What should their point be?
This is why I usually make a clear distinction between a "SG Founder" (the person who created a SG) and the current top "star" rank leader. While the SG Founder is also the top ranked leader at the beginning by default, obviously if that person leaves the game or voluntarily gives up the top rank then whoever replaces him/her becomes the new top ranked leader.
So I'd agree that the SG Founder should not have any special permanent privileges above and beyond anything granted to the current top ranked "star" leader. The current top leader is the person who has the top authority regardless if that person is the same person who created the SG or not. This is how later leaders can keep full control over the SG no matter the status of the original "Founder".
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
This is a pretty good idea but a system where you could give "edit per room" privileges might get a little messy if various base rooms were added or deleted. Not impossible to handle of course, but it'd require a lot of "hands on" management to make sure every member had the right privs for the right rooms at any given time.
If it's a matter of trust maybe the game could offer a lesser "edit only decorative items" priv. This would let a person change only superficial/decorative items anywhere in the base but they couldn't change any crafted/major components. That way you could trust people to decorate their own designated areas (or even the base at large) without fearing too much that'll they'll totally ruin the entire core functionality of the base.
Yeah you know your civilization's having a bad day when you have to fall back to the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Roslin]43rd in line of succession[/url] to become your new President. ;)
A multi-SG membership capability might be nice if it can be handled with whatever "SG contribution" Prestige equivalent they come up with. In any event this could probably be saved as a future QoL improvement after launch.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Like a lot of folks, I belonged to a number of SG's over the years. Some very large, demanding grouyps, other smaller ultra-casual ones. For a while, it seemed like as soon as I joined, the leadership would fade away and it would become stagnant or fall apart altogether. Requiring an established "Chain of Command" would help that somewhat.
I never got to team much with SG's. I came in around issue 6 or 7. Never went on a base raid, probably because I'm not a PVP'er and it smacked of that to me. However, I loved visiting other people's bases. And being invited to hang out with an SG who really worked on their RP while together was incredible. I think that Group Bases are immensely valuable as a way for members to meet "Avatar-to-Avatar", so to speak.
However, since a lot of my characters tend to be loner-types, the individual lair is very appealling also. I wonder how they would be differentiated.
They get to name the SG. I'd say that's special privilege enough.
To me SGs/guilds have always been about being with like-minded people for purposes of socializing and as a ready made source of people with whom to team (either impromptu or planned) or to ask for help. Even if my play style would mark be a soloer as often as not, I think it's nice to see a few people on in the SG when I log on.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
And even that is something a current top ranked leader of a SG should be able to change based on the suggestion I made back in [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/40966#comment-40966]post #8[/url] of this thread.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I was a member of the Legion of Catgirls, a rather large, multi-SG, omni-server coalition of fun/crazy people. I had belonged to other SGs before and had my own semi-private SGs as well. However, over time, all of my unattached characters ended up joining the Catgirls. After City there were other games and in those games I joined the Catgirls too, because it was Fun!
One of the features that made it work is the Global Channel. I had a separate chat-window in my UI that was Reserved for Global Chat. Despite membership in several other SGs, the Legion of Catgirls channel was the only one that I could count on to be active. Sometimes, I could count on it to be Zany.
So I'd have to agree with Darth Fez:
Be Well!
Fireheart
I liked War Bird's idea of some kind of minor buff for teaming with SG mates. It could work like Cosmic Balance worked in CoH with the Kheldians. For every, say, tanker type you're teamed with from the SG, you get a buff to dmg or something. It could be specific to your AT and/or to theirs, and/or to the number of SG mates in in the team.
I kind of like the idea of alignment rules for SGs, at least optionally at the discretion of the SG leadership (however that's handled). It's more true to the flavor of comics that you wouldn't have a bunch of openly-evil, wanted by the police costumed criminals in the Justice League, for example.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Personally, I'd prefer to see this sort of thing be even more limited than this suggests. I'd rather have the buff be +1% (base) with an additional +0.5% per SG member in the Team (minimum 2 SG members in Team). That way with 2 SG members in the Team you get +2% (1+0.5+0.5) and with 8 SG members in the Team you get +5%, rather than +8%. That keeps everything in the "small but nice to have" range of effects.
The main reason behind wanting to do things this way, rather than Warbird's original notion, is because doing things with a Base Plus A Little More like I suggest here then makes possible an additional bonus for having SG members in [i]other Teams[/i] when forming a [url=http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/League]League[/url] of (up to 6) Teams to take on mass combat content ... such as Hamidon or Rikti Mothership Raids or Incarnate Trials and the like. The formula for buffing would be the same as above within the Teams themselves, but you'd then add +0.25% for each SG member in the League outside your Team. So in theory, a League of 6 Teams of 8 SG members each would offer:
1 + (8 * 0.5) + (40 * 0.25) = +15% Buff
Now ... a +15% Buff [b]to what[/b] is a different question (it could be Hit Points for lack of a better idea), but once you settle on a formula, that then gives you an idea of the "scope" of what you're dealing with, and what kinds of impact(s) you'd want to account for to game balance should something like this get implemented.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
well by definition and it has happened, it was pretty simple for a leader to outright kill an SG. Usually simply kicking everyone, and being the last one to leave the SG and boom it's gone. Seen one leader didn't think everyone was pulling their weight and got pissed and kicked everyone. It was an SG that been around for a while, a couple of years, all down the tube because the leader said so.
Or many times, a Leader wait until the SG get's nice size, usually in the prior weeks, get all his alts invited to the SG, then one day kick everyone and have a ready made SG all to themselves. And anyone less than the leader was basically left holding empty bag with not much recourse besides to start all over.
But I did like that added feature of when a SG leader is gone for so long, it passes to someone else.
When should a group cease to exist a is a good question. Well maybe when the last person leaves but then again, that wont stop random destruction of the SG. I do think that if a SG is goes bye bye or other wise get kicked or have to leave because the leader or other members start acting like butts, the members should have the ability to recoup their SG points (or equivalent) and other stuff they spent on the SG instead of being at the mercy of one person that can kill the SG at anytime or any moment.
Yeah a leader should be able to kick, recruit, and the usual stuff. The question is how to prevent one from outright killing an SG. I think returning what members put into it back to them in some way would prevent the members from losing everything because of one person. No leader should have that much power to the point where they can up and one day decide everybody's else investment in the SG throughout the years will go down the tube forever or into their own coffers and personal SG for their alts built by everyone else.
Same here. SGs were, for me, at the very least big shared friends lists. So if I wanted to run with folks, I could just pop in and ask if anyone was running anything or wanted to run stuff or whatever. Not something I cared to do in zone global.
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
Not nearly that messy, really. Per-user privs are "added value" on top of the global privs; an added room is editable only by members with global base editing privs, and a deleted room deletes all its per-room privs (hard not to).
I'd specifically avoid making per-room privs complicated enough to resemble set manipulation. We don't need an "all rooms but this one" setting, for example.
Not just trust. It's also an acknowledgement that accidents can happen, and people who might not be familiar with the system can have the damage they can do limited to a room or two. Further, per-room privs might not grant the ability to add or remove non-decorative base items in that room.
Someone with a global "edit only decorative items" priv could still create a huge mess, especially if they drag objects to other rooms and lose them.
Also, I forgot to mention that I consider objects like floors and walls as "decorative" even though they are quite functional in terms of player movement.
IMHO the solution would need to at least include "what is given to the SG, stays in the SG."
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
So how do you accomplish your "personal office" idea from your earlier post? Do you make SG rooms "smart" enough to know which members can edit them or not or do you attach data to each SG member that lists which SG rooms they can edit or not? Either way that information will have to be mirco-managed either when SG rooms come or go or when new members join the SG.
Basically giving specific members unique privs (instead of relying purely on rank levels to define accessible privs) would be at best cumbersome to manage for large SGs no matter how it's handled and would make the concept of "rank" in a SG almost pointless if everyone had their own individual mix of privs.
I'd agree there's always some degree of risk with any global priv. I just don't think giving each individual member unique sets of privs would prevent 100% of that risk and what you get in return is a much higher level of micro-management that I'm not sure really helps anything.
I'd agree that whatever "Prestige" concept makes it to CoT it should work on the "what's given to the SG, stays in the SG" paradigm because it would be sucky for people to pour tons of "resources" into a SG base then pull it all out to ruin the base.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I'd actually have the 'personal office' just be a doorway which links to a Personal Base. Let all characters have their own space (less elaborate than CO) which is only accessible to the character, but which can be linked to their SG Base. Characters can invite others into their space.
This way, SG Leaders don't have to concern themselves with permissions, or anything else to do with these personal spaces.
Be Well!
Fireheart
I think it'd make sense for SG bases to have "personal base portals" and likewise for personal bases to have "SG base portals" so that a given character can go to either that applies to them. A particular SG base could even be allowed to have multiple "personal base portals" scattered around so that you can pretend if you go down through a specific doorway and pass through its specific portal that you would be heading to a unique character's personal base as you suggest or you could just have a single portal that could act as everyone's generic portal.
But if I want to RP that members of my SG will also get to have their own editable "personal spaces" in a greater SG base I'd still like to handle that more or less the same way CoH did. No reason that all can't work together like that.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
FWIW, WoW goes the opposite route with providing a buff if you're in a PuG[color=red]*[/color]. Using such buffs as an encouragement to group up with random people makes sense to me, since players should scarcely need any such thing to team up with people from their own SG.
For my part, I'm inclined toward the opinion that teaming up with others is, or should be, its own reward rather than that teaming up is deserving of a reward.
[color=red]*[/color] This buff only applies when doing instances (dungeons), not grouping up for doing the likes of missions/quests.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
Not to get picky or anything, but all this Base Editing Privilege and security stuff more properly belongs in the [url=http://cityoftitans.com/forums/bases]Bases Forum[/url] I'm thinking.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Well, the idea of buffs for SG teaming was the core concept. Glad you like it, Red. The math can be as complicated as one wants to yield the proper "sweet spot".
I haven't heard that there will even be anything like a League scenario available. If there is, I would think a 15% difference in just about any stat WOULD be a game changer. Is that the intent? That if you can put together enough people at the same time things get noticeably easier?
Regardless of where that "sweet spot" ends up, I still think a basically defensive buff would be the way to go. It makes sense from the standpoint of what you actually get from fighting as a group in real life. Like I said; "watching the other guys back". In a group, you don't get individually tougher (HPs or RES for instance) or stronger (DAM). But it does make it easier to "cover angles". You could justify maybe a slower endurance drain via "Esprit de Corps" perhaps. Or even ACC because, if you're not watching 360 degrees, you can concentrate on your target. But, in the end, I think DEF would be more realistic (whatever that's worth).
Hmm. That is an interesting and completely valid way to look at it too, Darth. We were talking about SG's and how to encourage joining. But personally, my playstyle would benefit more from the random PuG scenario.
If there's no benefit at all to joining a team, why do it? Its own reward? We've all been in PuG's that were more chore than reward.
OTH, I think an MMO benefits from team play. Random teaming and SGs both accomplish that. It's worth rewarding players as a form of encouragement. It shouldn't be so much that those who prefer solo play feel like they're being left behind, just enough to encourage sociability and community.
Finding that balance point is the trick, right?
The answer will change depending on the perspective with which one approaches the question.
Will the presence of a (negligible) buff encourage you to team up with people (esp. if you're disinclined to join teams)?
Will the absence of a (negligible) buff discourage you from teaming up with others in your SG (esp. if you're inclined to team up)?
Some people are not inclined to team up with others or join a SG. Do such non-essential benefits encourage them to leave their comfort zone or are they more likely to be a reward for people who are already inclined toward engaging in the desired behavior? I think any such bonuses/benefits should primarily exist to encourage being inclusive rather than insular. As you said, to paraphrase slightly, the MMOs/servers with the strongest or best communities tend to be those on which the players are inclined to reach out to others.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
Super groups in city of heroes were very democratic, actually, in that even if the leader was the only one with power, if everyone disliked him or her, the supergroup would split apart and there was nothing the leader could do. So how much should a leader have? Honestly I'd say, it should be something determined by the sg leader and the friends founding it with him or her. If they want a more totalitarian style sg they could have it, if they wanted higher rank members to have more rights that could be arranged even. I'd like though for sg's to be able to implement custom ranks, and more ranks. So that some ranks could be lower-end but do something other lower ranked individuals cannot that even some higher ranked members could, as to allow for more control in the sg and better delegation of supergroup duties, so to speak.
I realized something today(5/8/2014) that many MMORPG players, are not like us who enjoyed CoX. They enjoy repetitiveness and predictability, rather then unpredictability. We on the other hand enjoy unpredictability and variety.
In general, I see your point and my personal attitude is generally aligned with yours. But even my own personal experience, someone who, if I could have done everything solo as easily as I could with a team, would have done just that. But a lot of times it felt like a slog doing things solo. Took lots longer, at the very least. On many occasions I felt I was "putting up" with a team to help my leveling speed, rather than seeking out the experience for its own sake.
Granted, occasionally I found a team that was a joy and pleasure to run with, regardless of how well we did. Lots of humor or good RP can make even a terribly difficult mission a ton of fun. Overall I'm exactly the person who is "not inclined" to join. Anything, actually. And my first couple characters were leveled about 80% solo. Giving me a small XP incentive (even if it was only perceived) gave me reason to try teaming, and I ocasionally found it to be a blast. Enough that I found myself trying it more and more, hoping for a good experience. If I had been given no incentive at all, I might not have tried in the first place.
::Shrug:: Anyways, I can see both sides of this. And you and I are WAY off the topic now, Darth. :D We're back to the pointless speculation realm of "what might happen" without any on the ground experience until this goes live.
Indeed.
Looking at it in raw terms,
A person who is not inclined to team probably still wont even for a buff
A person who is inclined to team probably will still team even in the absence of the buff.
Now though the variables come into play depending on the reasons why people team or don't team. Some team because, whether real or imagined, feel they cant survive on their own in an efficient manner due to game mechanics or build choice or other factors. With these, if they could survive on their own, then they probably wont team. (Hence the talk about the effects on teaming if characters do or do not need to team due to being able to survive just fine solo).
Some may not team due to bad experience. If they dabble and find some good experience they may team, and while it's possible to attribute this to the added buff, it would merely be a coincidence.
Some may team depending on perks for teaming. With no perks, these people will see no reason to team. Even if one can easily form a team and do team work, without a perk or incentive they will not do it. (A seemingly common complaint about CO teaming compared to COX teaming even though both games one can team. In CO though teaming have less perks, if any noticeable ones, and thus many do not team or bother forming a team.) With perks, such as the buff thing, they will team. This is the group that the presence of a buff or absence of a buff may effect most in the decision of whether they will team or not.
Then some team depending on the circumstances. If teaming is required for some tasks, they will team, not necessarily because they want to or desire to but if they want to fulfill their desire to complete certain task, then teaming is viewed as a necessary downside to get the task completed. Others may simply be in a teaming mood that come and goes regardless of the perks. While some it depends on the game and their enjoyment. Some find some games is more fun for them solo and other games more fun for them teaming.
And of course there is the vast area of gray that is neither black nor white. AKA it's not always clear cut "I love to team." and "I hate to team." Majority of people that I can tell, falls somewhere along the middle ground depending on factors.
My guess is that a small buff for teaming probably wont increase teaming much but depends on how much of the population is the team for perk type. If the population of that type is large, then it probably will increase teaming because now they have reason to team. Which of course I'm not insinuating that is the wrong reason to team or it's a negative way to team for.
That's the effect I would wish to see promoted with such benefits. In my view this primarily requires some type of "random people getting together" bonus. Took hook this together with the SG team bonus for an example, SG members could bring a maximum bonus of +3% to the team and the non-SG (random/PuG) element could bring another +3%.
Someone was going to take this thread way off topic. Might as well be us. It's a public service, see.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
The Founder of a SG should have absolute power since they started the SG. You don't like the way he runs things? There's the door. That being said...
Anything you stored in the vault should come with you or give you the option to leave it behind. It's YOUR stuff after all.
I firmly believe that we should skip the whole SG currency and just use Inf to buy the base. If you get kicked out you have the option of taking any Inf you stored with you. Anything you spent on the Base...sorry that's like paying rent...it's gone.
The SG leader should ALWAYS be able to promote/demote others. However they should also HAVE to show up once in a while. Anyone who has apent as much or more actual time (since recruitment) in the SG can be demoted but not kicked. Sorry...if you make a SG, run it for 6 months and then abandon it for a year you CANNOT expect those that came after you to be beholden to you.
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
Indeed.
That is the main reason I decided to stop wit hthe SG thing and make my own. Either people get on a power trip, leave eventually, or dissolve the SG. Then everything put in was totally lost. A waste. After a while I started thinking as much as I put into other SGs and end up losing and having to start over each time, and if I made my own from the get go, by myself I probably would of had a very large SG base with all the bells and whistles. Eventually one villain side one hero side, got to nice sized but still lot of stuff lost fooling around with other people's SGs. Never again for me as long as if someone gets trippy and kick everyone or leave because the leader recently turned into a butt after a couple of years and cause me to lose everything, then never joining a SG ran by someone else. Too risky.
Now if there is little risk or no risk of losing everything simply because one person with the crown wanted to be the ass of the day, then sure, I wouldn't mind doing the SG thing.
Supergroup leaders. I loved a few. I hated more. And I was one.
I belonged to am SG where the leader - without any warning or reason - raised the base permission level to leader level, meaning that only he/ she could access inspiration collectors, storage and enhancement tables. I was once summarily kicked from an SG after I declined to join a TF because I was logging off. I even heard of one SG leader who kicked everyone from the SG when he/ she stopped playing CoH altogether.
When I became the leader of an SG (we had made it into the top 50 SGs on the server before the end came), I vowed that we would have one rule: to have fun. But then there were those members who never played in SG mode, yet felt free to take large inspirations without replacing them; or members who took someone else's stored enhancements or salvage.
And, in those instances when some members weren't "playing nice" or adhering to the honor system, it became necessary for me to expel them from the SG.
And since I found base building fun, I allowed anyone who was so inclined to put their own mark on the base, which worked out well until someone added something (I forget what) that left some of our telepads without power. At which time I restricted base building to members who had gained leader ranking.
So, I think that it is necessary for an SG leader to have the power to do some things unilaterally, but they shouldn't be all-powerful.
I agree with Brand-X that membership in an SG should have some benefit that effects game play, maybe based on a certain level that the SG has achieved. This would probably encourage members to help build-up the SG for reasons other than a larger base. Also, it seems to me that a villain would be more leery about facing a member of the Avengers than a member of the Legion of Substitute Heroes.
I disagree with this part, because I feel that if you put anything into the Guild Vault, you have given up rights to maintain a "claim" to it (as in that its yours).
This will be a point that I can see people discussing both sides of it.
To me, its like donating stuff to a charity shop, for others to use, but when you move out of the area, you take the stuff with you.
I agree. Though it's been my experience, I have to constantly remind members that we have a SG Vault storing lots of items and they're free to take!
In my opinion, if you put it in the SG bank vault, it's the SGs until a member takes it out. The question then becomes, do you store it in the SG vault for everyone, or go store it in your personal vault.
One of my SGs had a common set of bins in one room, and it was well known that the single bins in the other rooms belonged to specific people. You could kinda enforce this with permissions, but I'd prefer to be able to have individual permissions on storage items, so that only the leader and the owner could access a personal bin.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
[color=#ff0000][b]Moderator Note:[/b][/color]
Moved to Bases Forum since it's more of a discussion than a fleshed out idea to give to the Devs.
Not to worry, the Devs do read other forums.
Also, the base module is the second standalone after the Avatar Builder, so, our devs will be striking up conversations about bases with y'all soon enough, just FYI.
Former Online Community Manager & Forum Moderator
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
You attach the metadata to the room. Specifically, the global base editor could select a room, click "Show room editors", and see a list of people in the SG that can edit that room, with a list of SG members and "add" and "remove" buttons. Those with global edit permission are permanently in the "editors" list.
This would only be as cumbersome as the amount of fine-grained control the SG wanted to have. There's no requirement the SG use it. To use a computer metaphor, it's like moving from a simple owner/group/everyone permission model to access control lists.
And I don't want to throw away the good because it isn't perfect.
The rough part of that is that you have to zone to travel between these areas. Unless you expect the game to keep track of all these facilities at once.
That said, I'm with Lothic in that I think "personal housing" and "an office in the SG base" are distinct concepts, and further that there are some rooms you may want to grant a group of players edit rights, without making them global base editors.
I'd like to point out that this is basically the same system as the above "room edit permission" system, just applied to SG storage. It could be applied to other non-trivial items or systems in the base as well.
Further, STO has multiple "pages" in its Fleet banks, and the Fleet can set different permissions (though only rank-based, not fine-grained) on each one. Guild storage could work the same way, though I'd prefer a system that let you create as many sections as you needed, and allowed the SG leaders to put useful names on each section.
And I'd love to see a removal of item limits in the SG vault, too. Because it sucks when you get back from the big raid to find that someone filled the vault with junk. And really, why have such a limit at all? It's not something that affects combat.
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
Indeed.
I think SG membership could have some actual benefit and that may encourage SG membership. Although as with anything there are downsides if the perk is based on SG side. First of course is that larger doesn't always mean better heroes. A few actual good powerful SGs and some lone heroes are more frightening to villains than 100 substitute heroes. In relative SG terms, Avengers, Justice League and the like wasn't very big or rather didn't have a bunch of members. More like around the number of a normal team in COX, plus or minus a few. This could potentially create and make it harder for start up SGs later.
Like here is a scenario. Someone is part of a SG when the game launch. They stay for years the SG grows, people flock to it. Then for what ever reason the member gets kicked. Now, they might possibly be able to find another large SG for the perk. But if they choose to build their own, as time go on, they might find recruiting harder because they are not one of the more established large SGs and thus less perk.
Maybe the perk should be based on actual accomplishments. Kind of like the SG badges but actually mean something besides bragging rights. That way even a small SG that may for what ever reason, have trouble recruiting can gain benefits and so can the more larger SGs.
Now of course this is all assuming the perk is not simply marginal, actually marginal (aka regardless if it's optional or not to survive or the game is balanced around it or not.), in quantity and or quality.
What I'm getting at a perk based on SG size may end up causing it to be where there are great incentive to simply to join or try to join only large SGs and discourage starting new SGs as time go on.
That's perfectly awesome.
Over the last couple of WoW expansions I've noticed something like this. I had several characters in a level one guild that had an absentee guildmaster about the time Cataclysm was launched. Other than the absentee guildmaster, all other guildmembers were the characters of myself and two friends who do occasional LAN parties (we'd gotten invited back when our primary characters were still in the Northshire starting zone, back before Burning Crusade, and IIRC the guild had just started then).
Since then this guild, with effectively three players and their alts on that server, and none of them on for more than a few hours during the week and one full day every couple of weekends, has gained 16 levels (25 is max, I think), and each new level came with a little perk.
Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
[url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/foradains-character-conclave]Foradain's Character Conclave[/url]
.
Avatar courtesy of [s]Satellite9[/s] [url=https://www.instagram.com/irezoomie/]Irezoomie[/url]
I'm for anything that makes SGs (and bases) more fun and functional; especially from the perspective of the lowest ranking member within a supergroup. Socializing has its merits as does decorating (if you have the permissions to do so). But I always wished SGs did more for the rank and file.. to maintain interest if nothing else. I guess I favor more of a bottom up design approach than all this focus on the leader. And I believe some sort of well thought out SG perk system would be beneficial. I also have the crazy idea that it would be possible for the phrase "return to base, we need to plot our next move" could be designed to have meaning in a superhero themed game. But I haven't thought it out well. Maybe that will spark an idea or two along those lines.
First, all of the following are just my personal thoughts. DO NOT assume any of this is or could happen. Just a thought experiment really.
-
In a group SG, someone(s) needs to be in charge as I see it. That doesn't prevent including a few features that may help members feel their investment (in time and material) has some protection.
I am intrigued by Fire's view of "Bottom-up" design. The reason's I say someone needs to be in charge depends greatly the mechanics of "how" an SG's will function in CoT. So, if rent must be paid, how will it be paid, or by whom? If base design changes can be performed offline, for all or portions of a base, whom shall do that and how will they be integrated (in the case of multiple builders)?
Some obvious functions for SG and their bases are group storage and role playing. However, there may be other options, and this is where I see "Bottom-up" design coming into play. Could SG's be formed with different foundations (or intentions of operation)? Examples might be a Justice SG whose foundations are crime fighting, and have minimum alignment restrictions as a result: that may operate more like a voting council. Or the World Domination SG that serves a single omnipotent PC, whom sets the permissions for all of his followers: this one relies on the charisma of the individual forming/managing the group.
I just wonder if a selection of styles might be identified for SG's that come with inherent means of operation, bonuses, and restrictions? Just a random thought that may or may not get any traction.
-
Terlin
[color=#ff0000]The Bullpen[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Terlin, there's two basic models for SG organization ... Heirarchy and Egalitarian. With the former, you've got "steps" of responsibility and authority, and with the latter you get rid of the intermediate steps and essentially promote everyone up to (functionally) the same level. Large SGs tend to run on the Heirarchy model, often for security reasons having to do with permission sets. Small SGs tend to run on an Egalitarian basis (especially in the case of "personal" SGs).
As far as the SG "Leader" role is concerned (as far as the game environment defines it), they ought to have authority over every function of the SG, *and* a clearly defined successor in the even that the SG "Leader" role is vacated (either through inactivity or through an Impeachment process recognized by the SG Registrar NPC that will forcibly demote the SG "Leader" and replace them with their heir apparent).
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Hmm a "princes of the universe" reference and an "over 9000" reference but what does the rest reference?
Issue 0 CoH player barely let my subscription lapse before NC Soft called it quits; my incarnate gear *Sniff*
Global: Chance Jackson; Triumph: Liege Cheetatron X, Fight of Your Life, Down Right Fierce, Infernal Samurai, Time May Change Me etc
Return of the Jedi.
Dragonball.
Touhou Project.
Queen.
Financier J. P. Morgan.
Superman (original TV series, I believe).
City of Heroes did SGs well. There was little about how they had it set up, that I did not think was ok. The thing that prevented me from participating in them more, were things unrelated to how they were set up.
*I would join a popular SG/VG, I liked the person who invited me and I enjoyed teaming with group members. They would have a good reputation on the server. But, problem! The SG in-crowd was just that: an in-crowd. There was never room on the team for people like me, and as a result I never got to really get to know everyone and prove myself to them. Eventually I would pull those character[s] out and return to my solo group, because if I am running by myself I might as well accrue prestige for my own base.
*Then there was a time I was in a SG I loved, in came a competitive clique who basically took over the group and they brought their court-jester with them: a guy beloved by everyone, but who enjoyed doing stuff such as griefing Tfs and acting like an ass in channel chat. Yeah.... no. The leader thought these people were Da Bomb, and would not rein them in. Good-bye to several years' worth of loyal membership, and I returned to my private SG.
*Then there was the time I was in a SG who expected me to actually call in to work in order to attend SG meetings once a week, or get booted. Are you *&^$!ing kidding me?!! This is the real world, people. Operated by real-world moneys. Back to my own group.
I could go on. The short[er] version is, that the things that would make me stay happily in a large group are not things like nominal buffs; it would be people behaving in a pro-social manner. Unfortunately this is really hard to come by, so my groups in CoT will probably consist of me and my husband quietly stashing up loot. A SG leader should have all the power. They should actually be LEADING. This is a really rare concept. I think I saw it about twice in my almost seven years in CoX.
Excuse possibly off-topic stuff contained above.
I think i'd like it if you spelled out the leadership succession options. Either require more than one leader upon inception or require that the leader be forced to give successor rights to a secondary contact.
If there's going to be a player resource cap then please automatically move excess cash into the SG vault instead of losing it outright (or at least have it as a toggleable option). Bank rules are the single most important thing to me in an SG. Hierarchy be damned but I really hate brand new people thieving from SG vaults and ghosting.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
SG thievery is yet another reason I didn't mind running solo. I was the only person in my groups, and that meant my stuff was definitely safe. Win!
Really don't want a resource cap. Not worth doing, since people will find ways around it just like they always do.
I can see SGs designed either as 'general' (or maybe Social is a better term) or Themed (with goals in mind). The Social type would be more of a club people hang out in, form teams, RP etc. There can still be standards of membership (log in once every 30 days and so forth) but otherwise the whole thing is kept very loose. I think this would appeal to the casual players who want the transport options, RP center and closet to store Stuff.
The Themed SGs are the ones that you mentioned like Crime-fighting or Global Domination. The Founder sets the rules when the SG is created and others must adhere. If they don't like it...there's the door. However there would be restrictions set to prevent the Founder from abandoning the SG or suddenly making radical changes (heroes become villains etc) to drive others away or restrict access.
As with many things, this is not an easy problem with simple solutions. The minute you get two people together you have the potential for differences of opinion. There will be lots of work on the front-end to avoid trouble later. This is why you need the Casual or Social option for players who want to avoid the drama and complexity and just play.
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
The way to avoid SG thievery is to not put stuff in the SG vault that you don't want taken by other members. Have something you want stored? Use your personal storage.
In my opinion: A leader should be the symbol in which all other heroes under him/her should inspire to become to inspire others or carry the flags of his/her ideals should the leader die/unable to fight.
Or maybe it will be kinda in the "The Knights of Tomorrow" episode of Batman: Brave and the Bold where Bruce settles down with Selina and have a son. But due to an unfortunate event (won't spoil it unless someone wants to see it), the Batman mantle is passed on, keeping the Batman Legacy around for years to come.
~~~~~
Twitter: [url=https://twitter.com/Franzseska]@Franzseska[/url] // Tumblr: [url=http://franatastic.tumblr.com/]Haus of Zapatera[/url]
I think if you are that worried about a SG leader doing some of those bad things mentioned, then just don't join their SG.
Haha, you know! At first I had no idea what you were talking about, but then I re-read the title and discovered that I misread it. XD I somehow read it as "How much power should a Super[i]hero[/i] leader have?"!
But yeah, please, ignore the post I wrote. I guess I should re-read titles in the future, before post in them. :p
~~~~~
Twitter: [url=https://twitter.com/Franzseska]@Franzseska[/url] // Tumblr: [url=http://franatastic.tumblr.com/]Haus of Zapatera[/url]
thanks
Issue 0 CoH player barely let my subscription lapse before NC Soft called it quits; my incarnate gear *Sniff*
Global: Chance Jackson; Triumph: Liege Cheetatron X, Fight of Your Life, Down Right Fierce, Infernal Samurai, Time May Change Me etc
Makes perfect sense. So long as people can come and go as they please, then those tyrannical little SG leaders can have all the power they want. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D8i8QGgz0k]Hell, if they have it then they can FLAUNT it for all I care.[/url]
<==========)===O|TtDd|O===(==========>
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/toon-profiles-nnekonnin-llabanttselel-aalbusuumbra-aagimundr-sstaalsol-and-doctor]My original character profiles![/url]
[img]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/26.jpg[/img]
One thing we could use is a Vote of no confidence system. Members of the SG could anonymously vote that the leader isn't doing their job and or isn't doing it properly. If it gets to low members vote them out of office.
Or have it that the votes of confidence is seen able to members and the Leader themselves. If a Leader is popular their Confidence rank is high might even offer buffs or other benefits of being a popular leader. Would be good to have that confidence ranking on the Supergroup search so you can see if a Supergroup you are thinking of joining has a popular leader.
-------------------------------------------
Personal rules of good roleplay
1.) Nothing goes as planned.
2.) If it goes as planned it's not good RP
That is something that I can see being abused where players could join an SG, and then vote out the leader without the leader being able to do anything. Sure, it might suck being in a sucky SG, but there is *NOTHING* in the game that would force you to be in THAT SG.
You could go off and form your own or join a different one.
All I can see from this is the potential for players to be able to grief well meaning SG leaders to usurp power and steal/abuse other players whilst not BREACHING the rules of the game.
It is worth noting that in Eve Online, which is more "corporation" orientated than CoX was, they don't have this ability either. However, because of the mechanics of the game, there is *NOTHING* to stop players from infiltrating opposing corporations, and building up trust inside there to later turn on the corporation and steal assests/trade secrets to another corp/alliance.
However, if this was the case... would you *really* take on people who you just met randomly ingame? I know that in Eve Online because of the systems in place, you can really fine tune what a "new player" can do to damage the corporation. But that still doesn't prevent corporations from looking at the history of corps that you have been in, talking to people in THOSE corps to see what kind of person you were.
And for CoT, i wouldn't like something like that to come in. It just doesn't make sense for the style of game that is going to be.
Now, if it was more open PvP orientated/sandbox style... then I *could* see it working. But only so far.
I strongly feel that each player should be allowed to join the SG and contribute Credits as they see fit. However, at any time said player can leave the SG and take all of their Credits with them. That way petty tyrants will have control over the SG (singe they founded it/lead it/whatever) but they'll soon find themselves in an empty hall with no SG members if they act out of line. Outsiders can never 'take over' a SG this way but they can choose to go, take their stuff with them, and form their own.
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
I mostly agree with that approach, but since I think there should be a concept of 'group rep' as well as 'member rep', I'd prefer it to be a percentage... like 80% of what you earn while in an SG follows you around while 10% sticks to the SG (I'm not too hung up on the exact numbers, since most anything would make me happier than the 100%-sticks-to-SG we had before). Whatever of that rep you had before joining an SG will get included to the SG's total while you are in there, but that all leaves with you if you go... The percentage would just apply to what you earn while there.
Global: @Second Chances
SG: Fusion Force
"And it's not what I wanted
Oh no, it's not what I planned
See it's not where I thought I'd be
It's just where I am"
Since running with SG mates can potentially increase your earnings I could see an 80/20 split. However anything special that a character unlocked (like special Base equipment or decorations) go with them.
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
That can only apply IF the system is setup so that the improvements in a base are done via a personal pool of prestige, and not from the *shared* pool.
So this means that if it was in the CoX style, there was no way to use "personal prestige" to build something. It was entirely built upon the "Group" prestige.
It also means that "base building" services would not exist. I know of at least one person who would join SG's, farm up the prestige needed to build a base, build it for the SG, and then leave the SG.
This only worked because "earnt" prestige whilst in SG mode automatically went towards the group.
Now, if it was instead built upon a system where there was "personal" and "group" prestige then I Can see the system working. So the group prestige (or any extra that you dontated towards the group) would stay if you *left* the SG, the personal prestige would be the amount that you could choose to spend on items in the group.
Oh wait, we had that in CoX... although the conversion rate sucked, you could convert Inf over to Prestige if you wanted.
However, I don't think that the case of "If they leave they take their stuff" automatically should be the norm. I think it should be an option that crops up for the person leaving (or kicked from) an SG.
"Do you want to take your Toys with you?" Kind of style option.
How much power should a Supergroup leader have?
Enough to do their job.
1. Name (and possibly rename) the SG
2. Chose the SG symbol, colors, motto, etc.
3. Invite/kick players.
4. promote/demote SG members
5. Set permissions for other members
It would be nice to give the leader the ability to transfer their leadership so if they are leaving the SG (or the game in general) they can hand over the keys to someone else.
There is no way to stop people from being jerks. If someone wants to Kick all the SG members out and either end the SG or have his own personal base there is nothing we can do to stop them.
-----------------------------------------
I never set anything on fire accidentally!
The Titan Legacy - Defender of the Inner Flame
I am also having some difficulty in seeing how an individual would contribute to a SG and then take most of it with them if they leave. In addition, I'm at a loss to see a reason for such a system beyond a "screw you guys, I'm taking my toys and going home" message.
Whatever permissions SG leaders may or may not have is irrelevant to me. If I don't like the leader or the SG, I doubt it will have anything to do with any such 'power'. I'll need only one 'power': /gquit.
Since it's been long enough, obligatory
[img=160x215]http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/4/49448/1776235-poster01copy.jpg[/img]
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
There also a Grifting effect to the quitters. The Grifter joins a Guild does tons of Taskforces to build up the rep/guild cash. Then splits yanking all that away right before rent is due just to mess with the guild. Or the grifter could been a spy/sabotager from a rival guild.
-------------------------------------------
Personal rules of good roleplay
1.) Nothing goes as planned.
2.) If it goes as planned it's not good RP
As an alternate Idea, Supergroups could have a 'council' position wherein kicking (and/or blocking hero from getting reinvited) requires votes of a majority of the people in a council position. Council positions could then be passed off due to inactivity as any other leadership role. SGs where one person wants to have full control would have a council of one and people would know that a single person has control as they join the Supergroup...
Some other ideas I'll toss out that I thought of when reading this thread:
1. Different Type of Base Storage Units -
Different types of enhancement storage, one storage unit which allows each SG member to store enhancements which only they can access, and another which are available to anyone in the SG to take...
2. SG Builds - If set up by the SG Leader, joining an SG creates an additional build sheet, and resources taken from SG storage bins can only be placed in the build for that SG. Making the SG build your active build automatically puts you in SG Mode. Build is removed (locked away) if the hero leaves/kicked from the SG.
/.-, VV
Give the leader ultimate rights. Players can choose how to govern from there.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
If the guild is running so low on Credits that any single player contributes THAT much then maybe they should have that much power. As for a spy or saboteur I find this HIGHLY unlikely and I'd rather not see the system designed around a one in a million chance. I'd rather see it designed for the most common things first.
Seriously, unless they were griefing the base design or stealing from Inventory have you ever heard of someone sabotaging a rival SG?
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
I know this is a bit of a thread necro, but I've only recently joined the forums.
In most of the SG's I belonged to in CoH I trusted the leadership. The few exceptions were groups where the buddy system was in place for Rank structure. I didn't tend to stay long in those groups.
I believe the leader should have the right to invite/kick members, as well as base building, SG money management, etc. I'm also in favor of being able to invite new members while they are off line.
I however believe that promoting a member of the group in SG rank should only be possible for another member of the group. Regardless of my rank in the group I should not be able to promote my own alts.
No one man should have all that power
Issue 0 CoH player barely let my subscription lapse before NC Soft called it quits; my incarnate gear *Sniff*
Global: Chance Jackson; Triumph: Liege Cheetatron X, Fight of Your Life, Down Right Fierce, Infernal Samurai, Time May Change Me etc
SG Leader can put in a Dismissal Request and the clock starts counting down. After 28 days (4 weeks), if the SG members dont vote for a new member as the SG Leader, the SG is disbanded.
But if the members vote and have a new SG Leader before the 28 days are up, SG Leader can choose a new name for the SG (old leader might not like his Name being used out of spite and denies/locks its use by future SG's for 6 months, reapply a Claim on the name every 6 months or else it becomes fair game). As soon as ALL the members accept the new leader, not having to wait till the last day, all are now part of the New SG.
Of course, there could a method that automatically moves you to the new SG as soon as its created by the SG Leader... but handful of people might dislike that approach. So, its best to leave it to the Members when and IF they want to join the new SG. :/
Creative ideas, but governing player behavior on this level is simply not within dev responsibility IMHO.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Quite right, its not. We plan to put in the basics, that is what types of 'rank hierchy' an SG can have, the permision settings, and the base system for handling inactive SG leader replacement - just to cover the worst case scenario where sg leaders have sole access to certain things and no one can boot them out and set up the new leader, and this goes from leader, officers, down to members - to cover the rare scenario of the leaders and officers are gone long term and the general members still want to run the sg but don't want to disband and start from scratch.
There are other settings we are considering, but they aren't of necessity to get done at launch as they're more time-related and the game as well as sgs will need to age before its deemed necessary to implement them. We'll have the hooks in place to tack on later - as with many systems we are designing them to be modular.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Very interesting
Issue 0 CoH player barely let my subscription lapse before NC Soft called it quits; my incarnate gear *Sniff*
Global: Chance Jackson; Triumph: Liege Cheetatron X, Fight of Your Life, Down Right Fierce, Infernal Samurai, Time May Change Me etc
Pages