Info on Changes to Guild Cities
-
Earlier, players were having a discussion expressing concern about the changes to Guild Cities from a previous Spotlight, in that, we no longer really HAVE them. You can watch the recent Questions and Answers with Prometheus on Oxfurd's interview for the details.
However, the details are actually here on the forum too, but not out in the open. I have permission to share this.
@Prometheus said in
redactedHi
redacted redacted redacted redacted, apologies for the slow reply, I've been quite busy in the last few days
We understand your concerns and indeed I haven't been very clear in the Q&A on this specific matter.
The reason we removed the concept of a "guild city" is because the governor should be an actually important figure, not just the figurehead of a guild master - if he/she is not a guild master himself, I mean. Also, the label "guild city" is hard to understand for a player who hasn't read a lot about Fractured and could easily think that only guild members are allowed to live in the city.
If you are both a guild master and a governor and choose an Authoritarian rule instead of a Democratic rule, you are de-facto ending up with an equivalent of the old "guild city". Within the political system (coming in Q3 this year), you'll also be able to make your town part of a realm or make it subordinate to a guild or another town - but that's a different story and I don't want to reveal too much yet
Is it all clear now?
TL;DR: if you are a Governor, you can choose an Authoritarian rule and not have elections.
-
We are also to get some updates on the spotlight info apparently Soon
according to Prometheus on the discord today.
-
What Prometheus wrote, sounds very interesting.
And it's true, by using that particular type of government, you can de facto rule the city as you see fit, like guild leader would rule a guild city.
-
It still kinda confuses me.
I'm guessing if a guild takes over an city. the governor role falls to the guild leader then the guild leader can then pass off the governor to anyone else?
I think systems about this should be talked about a little more.I also feel like towns should be a really interesting focus with advancements in tech, to show/ display wealth, Even't and culture and so on...
-
@maze said in Info on Changes to Guild Cities:
It still kinda confuses me.
I'm guessing if a guild takes over an city. the governor role falls to the guild leader then the guild leader can then pass off the governor to anyone else?
I think systems about this should be talked about a little more.I also feel like towns should be a really interesting focus with advancements in tech, to show/ display wealth, Even't and culture and so on...
No, the opposite. The governor is only the guild leader if the guild leader is a governor. The way they have it now, even though a Governor may be a part of a guild, if that governor decides to leave the guild, they can take their entire city with them. Because, the city is not guild bound.
-
I recommend guild halls where you can get quests and adventures at.
-
@Tamdemonium said in Info on Changes to Guild Cities:
I recommend guild halls where you can get quests and adventures at.
With the quests and rewards set by the owning guild, aye? I like it
-
I personally would like to see a LOT of control given to the governor. If they want to lock the city to guild only they should be permitted to do so.
-
@Ostaff said in Info on Changes to Guild Cities:
@maze said in Info on Changes to Guild Cities:
It still kinda confuses me.
I'm guessing if a guild takes over an city. the governor role falls to the guild leader then the guild leader can then pass off the governor to anyone else?
I think systems about this should be talked about a little more.I also feel like towns should be a really interesting focus with advancements in tech, to show/ display wealth, Even't and culture and so on...
No, the opposite. The governor is only the guild leader if the guild leader is a governor. The way they have it now, even though a Governor may be a part of a guild, if that governor decides to leave the guild, they can take their entire city with them. Because, the city is not guild bound.
I find this a little concerning, when you consider the amount of drama that has been seen in MMO's since day 1 of MMO's.
We all better hope that the Governor's of our capital city stay happy and stable, and don't ditch a whole Guild on a whim or at the sniff of a better offer from a rival Guild...... Makes you think ?
-
This post is deleted!
-
Well, now I kind of want to know what are the exact bonuses for governors, because at this point it looks terribly prone to being p2w.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Razvan said in Info on Changes to Guild Cities:
Well, now I kind of want to know what are the exact bonuses for governors, because at this point it looks terribly prone to being p2w.
Pay to work hard ... is more what I see, would not want that sort of responsibility on my shoulders.
-
@Meiki
That's why I asked what are the exact advantages. In every game I played so far, owning a city is a huge economic advantage, that's why guilds fight over them. Owning a city by default as long as you wish because someone in your guild bought an expensive pack doesn't seem right to me.
-
Honestly from my experiences in SWG a city inhabited by one guild is hard to maintain. We had our own city and our guild went through a schism with it splitting into 2 groups. It left the city in shambles.
Likewise there needs to be an easy way to transition a city from the existing governor to a new one in case they quit the game. In fact, there needs to be login requirements for a governor. In SWG we lost several of our buildings because we had no one in charge to pay the taxes and allocate funds where they needed to be. It was a mess all because one person decided they didn't want to run the city any more.
We ended up with control later and got things back on track. We invited other guilds to join the city and before we finally quit we had 8 fairly large guilds in the city and it made us the largest on our planet.
-
@Farlander
An election cycle can be triggered in the following ways:- In towns with democratic rule, if 21 days have passed since elections were last held
- In all towns, when the Governor’s account becomes inactive for a long time, without an assigned delegate
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Nekrage said in Info on Changes to Guild Cities:
I personally would like to see a LOT of control given to the governor. If they want to lock the city to guild only they should be permitted to do so.
However, to balance for that, by giving more control to governor, you also have to implement more potential ways for people to "dethrone him".
Otherwise game can just turn to governors dictatorships.
-
@Gothix said in Info on Changes to Guild Cities:
@Nekrage said in Info on Changes to Guild Cities:
I personally would like to see a LOT of control given to the governor. If they want to lock the city to guild only they should be permitted to do so.
However, to balance for that, by giving more control to governor, you also have to implement more potential ways for people to "dethrone him".
Otherwise game can just turn to governors dictatorships.
Take the city from them. Beat them in a siege. That should be the ONLY way to remove them from power.
-
Otherwise game can just turn to governors dictatorships.
I feel like that's exactly what "if you are a Governor, you can choose an Authoritarian rule and not have elections" grants to the Governor role, and is entirely why guilds will need to work to get these roles. Either through recruiting someone who holds that pledge, or through working to get one through gameplay.
