Some QOL clan/guild/faction management tools

[Tumbla]

So an issue i have seen with other games is that you are not allowed to really manage and maintain your in game guild/faction. Some problems i see is that there sometimes seems to be a very limited Guild/Faction management UI. A bad UI, leads to poor in game management of the guild, spies, guilds being inside'd and a poor overall experience.
These suggestion i think would help improve overall experience of players and guild leaders, aswell as improve group play within the game:

1. Total member count in guild menu
2. Last time a member was online
3. Customization of individual member ranks in the guild, from name of the rank to permissions each individual rank has. (ex: has access to storage, only view storage access, access to guild coffer, etc.)
4. Guild Bank/Guild coffer that everyone has deposit access too, and option to choose who has withdrawal permission with a max daily withdrawal amount
5. Storage Labels ( to be able to name certain storage containers so we know whats inside of them)
6. Shared storage, permission so you can choose who has access to your storage from: Entire guild, certain players, or no one, etc
7. Storage logs, and guild logs. To be able to see what changes were made to the guild, or who took items/put items in a storage
8. Shared rental plots for guilds in starter zones, so guilds can use those until they start building their own bases/ stations

Non management suggestions:

1. Alliance system: A system that lets you add players to a player faction alliance, a way to see differentiate alliance players and guild members from other individual players.
2. A group system, of 5 people works out good but i do not think its the best for large scale open world MMOs that have open world combat. A Group/Raid system of 20 players, seems to be the magic number with a way to set group/raid leaders where you can mark that player so he is easier to spot.
3. In order to somehow limit, zerg factions some sort of limit to membership in a faction, maybe 50-100?

That's just some of the stuff id like too see in game for guild management, as im assuming player factions/guilds will be a big thing in the game, I really hope the game can handle large scale combat, because if its truly an open world MMO, with open in a single shared server factions will not stay small and eventually as more groups form up and zerg guilds join the game smaller groups will band together either merging factions or starting alliances.

Let me know what you think, do we need more QOL options?

 

[CalenLoki]

Artificial limitations on max player number is not only pointless, but also extremely easy to work around. It just leads to Rambo1, Rambo2, Rambo 56...

 

[Tumbla]

Artificial limitations on max player number is not only pointless, but also extremely easy to work around. It just leads to Rambo1, Rambo2, Rambo 56...

Yeh you could make more factions affiliated with your main one, but from other games ive learned that it is harder to micro manage. Rambo 1 rambo 2 rambo 3, more officers to micro manage all the different ingame storages, bases etc.

 

[Guedez]

Are you suggesting to make something absolutely hell to manage in a thread where you ask for QOL things?

 

[Tumbla]

Are you suggesting to make something absolutely hell to manage in a thread where you ask for QOL things?

join the conversation, in your opinion what would make it "hell", also if it leads to making it harder for zergs then yeah.

 

[Guedez]

I am pointing the irony. Maybe "Making it hell" was too much, but you are asking to make something have a low quality of life while asking for other things to have a high quality of life.
I'd rather the game not have bad design by design

 

[LauriFB]

We are still designing the guild management system, but it's going to be a very ambitious one, and should deliver on most issues listed here

We won't limit guild/faction sizes though (and in fact our tools will support very large guilds as well), but instead balance game other ways.

 

[Burnside]

What about a max member limitation based on how many lots the faction owns AND the number, age, and size of stations they control? If they lose member cap below their actual member count then the 'youngest' members are autokicked after xyz time period and the leadership has to manage the organisational difficulties that ensue, so your oldest and biggest faction stations are the most important to defend and the biggest payoffs for enemies to attack. That way a war can progress through a grueling station by station campaign or a riskier but more rewarding island-hopping blitz and both opponents can change up their overall strategy as the war develops. It would also avoid death spirals or rapid tug of war switches because a captured or recaptured station, regardless of its size has its "age timer" reset, meaning even once taken back it becomes less organisationally useful as it once was and develops even just one axis of a long-term penalty, permanently changing the strategic layer of the battlefield.

Also, basing it on lots/stations held (and not rented out) means even subsidiary rambo7/rambo8 iterations will have a 3-5 man limitation if they hold the minimum territory to set their "HQ" on and allow such "exploits" but still softcap the behavior with a high organisational cost and probably reduced efficiency over simply aggregating into a single org under a combined lot holding and station ownership.