Guild or Nation?
================

I think its about time this issue got addressed and maybe some direction of change found for the Devs to consider.

Bluntly speaking, the current split between guild and nation membership doesn't work.

I propose :

The current nation system be dismantled.

All new players, or any outside of a guild, shall become pirates. They may then choose to stay as such, or seek a guild to join and thus acquire citizenship of a nation and its benefits.

Each guild will choose a nation as its 'flag' : All members shall be citizens. New members joining shall become citizens of the lowest rank. Members leaving for any reason shall become pirates.

If a current pirate starts a new guild : it must choose an unused 'nation' flag as its own, then all new members will become citizens.

Pirates should have some recompense for not being able to gain port control : some plunder bonuses and potential ships abilities could even make it a desirable status.

'Nations' will gain and maintain port control as now, based on which guild has the highest total influence : the port will then fly that guilds 'national flag' : the Governor will be chosen as now, from the nation's highest ranks.

All bonuses gained via 'nation' missions and rank-ups will remain in force and can be worked towards under the new system. In addition, basic nation citizenship will give a small trade bonus in ports under its control. Nation rank will act only as a means to gain the current bonuses.

Nation treasury functions and control will pass to the Guild, and act as its Treasury also. Voting on new laws, taxes, and pay-outs will act as before, with voting power based on guild rank. Via ship taxes, the guild can raise its own funds if it lacks port income. New laws in which a portion of all plunder gains, or a portion of trade profits, are passed to the Guild Treasury, and the amount, shall be available.

Benefits :

A strengthening of guilds as the basic power structure. A wider distribution of port ownership more directly influenced by each guilds abilities and membership. A means for guilds to build reserves and assist new members. An end to split loyalties. A better structure to introduce enforceable pacts and treaties between guilds : guilds with a peace treaty in place will not be able to attack each other in the same way guild members cannot attack each other. 'Stepping out' to avoid attack restrictions will be punished by automatic piracy then having to re-join with all previously held 'nation' rank and bonuses lost.

Implementation :

There is no easy way to do it; some will lose, some will gain : but as influence is still held by individuals, re-calculating port ownership would not require any changes in method. Perhaps it could be linked to the new map/hide-out changes : as player resource production becomes more important, the focus may need to shift to single port ownership by a guild which improves and defends that port, rather than current system of just owning as many as your nation treasury can support until some bigger treasury comes along and takes one.

Apologies for the length, but it's a lot of ideas to get in place.

One potential problem I see with this is multiple guilds of the same nationality. Which would control the national treasury?

+1 i like the idea.
allot.
The issue with several guilds being in the same nation might be solved as. One Guild one nation.
Other guilds should not be able to wear the banners of another guilds nation.

Aye.. I have spent a year trying to understand how the political landscape works and why it is such. I have come to the conclusion that it is an unwanted result of adding guilds to a game originally designed to stand alone.

The problems and situations that arise is definitely a major drawback to the game and constantly puts player's in uncomfortable situations.
I try to mitigate by asking the question to myself- "Is this a guild or national issue" and taking a course of action depending on my perception but normally, anything that affects ports influence or population is always a national issue of concern.
This is my own interpretation and probably is not shared by everyone. Situations are not always black or white.

Xanadu wrote:One potential problem I see with this is multiple guilds of the same nationality. Which would control the national treasury?

I would see it as much easier to keep it as : one nation=one guild.

How to deal with the 'patrimony' is much tougher and may require a one-off division of a nations current funds : for example : Nation A has 10 active members and a treasury of 50million : 6 form a guild, affiliated to that nation ; they recieve 6/10ths as their new guild treasury : 2 convert to nation B and join that guild ; they take 2/10ths to their new treasury : 2 convert to nation C in another guild, they take the remaining 2/10ths : Of course, it will be far more complex than that, but its what computers are good at calculating, after all. I'd foresee some major 'carpet-bagging' going on before hand with opportunists joining currently rich nations : a metric involving length of citizenship would be required to weed them out, also to reflect those with long and loyal service in their current nations cause.

The balance of power issue of guilds, as well as the political tap dance needed in conflict between nations is part of the intrigue and interest in Pirates Glory. Guilds gained their influence simply because guilds were established and utilized prior to the nations feature. In fact, guilds came in two basic flavors - trader and pirate.That is no longer the case as national influences are quite present in guilds, and the nation feature is still under construction.

A mechanical feature for treaties and pacts will not work for each and every situation as guilds will diversify in purpose, goal, vision and focus. However, there are a few tools the guild could use to better lend power to its leadership:


Soon, nations will vote to allow certain individuals to operate banks - Why not the same with guilds? By chartering a nationally recognized guild, it would gain some financial power that ties directly to the issuing nation - and vise versa. Big countries could have more than one guild, each with specific mission and purpose.

A national guild could operate a bank account, send payments, withdrawls, take out loans, etc. The guild could be required to pay license fees, follow national laws, ie, pacts and treaties, under penalty of law. In otherwords, if a guild is multi- national, all members of that guild will fall under the guild's recognized state laws. This way, smaller, single person countries would have a means to ally their forces by guild membership.

State chartered guilds could operate a from the nation's treasury, which could be held in the nation's treasury. They could be issued as funds set aside for guild use without council's approval needed, etc.

This would be in return for promoting the nation's interest in commerce and war.

A state charter would not be necessary to form a guild - a multi-national would simply operate as it currently operates as a grass roots type organization.

This is just food for thought, as I see much yet to be added to the nations feature, it may be time to consider tweaking what we currently have rather than dump it all to start again.

I agree with Sir Henrys food for thought.

Adding tweaks such as the guildmasters choosen profession rather it be trader/banker/fighter/pirate. Which ever there choosen profession is what the guild requirements will fall under. That way it evens the playing field and opens up imo better gameplay mechanics/tactics.

For Example: If a guildmaster has trader as there chosen profession he will have no limit to the amount of guild members in the trade profession that can join, however there would be a limit to the amount of fighters/bankers that can join under a trading guild if (Guild Masters Chosen Profession is Trader) which would fall under a trading guild. This would work vice versa with the Guild Masters Choosen Profession. Pirates is the only profession which doesnt have limits which would make pirates a force to be reckoned with considering the game is called pirates glory and not merchants glory

Im not sure if this is very much relevant but does fall off into some categorys of the suggested idea, and it also fell off at being a tweak haha but nevertheless somebody somewhere will get the great idea which will solve all the problems just from the suggested ideas we talk about here

The current system of guild and nation allows to have a guild of flying the same flag. If you are bothered about split loyalities within the guild regarding nation then what good could come of sending them to a different guild that flies their flag ? I think the guild and nation should be two separate features and each of them getting developed better. Making your guild fly a specific flag is tottaly upto your guildmaster and it is possible then why demand for a feature that makes it compulsory ?Regarding professions, here Player Specialization feature comes into play which can be developed later. But making profession as a factor for determining the players that get in is extremely bad. A good is one with all kinds of players and there should no restrictions regarding the number of players in a guild. The current system also allows you to make that possible if that is what you want.

-1

In my opinion, for what it is worth, the chaos that sometimes comes from a mix of guild and nations not always being together presents part of the challenge of PG. There comes into play a mix of diplomacy and plotting which keeps interest tight. Yes it would be more simple if each nation had a guild and it was clear cut, but things are not always clear cut in life. Pirates do the things that pirates do. Swapping flags, misrepresenting ones self and having multiple factions under a flag are all part of it. If you combine the two you are doing away with one or the other. As it is, there is a place for both. It adds to the intrigue of the game having guilds and nations possibly at opposing ends with each other. It makes diplomatic relationships more tenuous. Basically, I find it to be challenging and after all....this is supposed to be a game for thinking people. Figure it out, can the King trust one guild and not another? Can the guilds trust the King? I say make changes if you must, but leave the complexity and the duplicity which can and does evolve in place.

Fine, u r all debating the adv and disadvs of the poster's thoughts. But think just what wud bcome of the new players! Even if ur pros outnumber the cons, the players will be bereft of 'free' choice.....(It's my signaute comment style-a few dots and a bracket of words__nice idea, huh?). Players coming into PG will be wanting to join more or less powerful/safe guilds untill they bcome proficient enough.....or they will choose a guild that agrees more with their policies.
Aye Cappys don't (usually) turn up at start (I've gathered that the great? acknowledged person is a non-trader). Most players focus on economy/traderoutes at first(usually again). Guild policies will seriously affect their choice. Player policies will be undermined and reshaped into guild policies...(unless they start new guilds which will either take too much time OR nobody will join their guilds). Think of the enjoyment lost at first stages....even if guilds changed policies to suit everyone, would'nt it bcome rather monotonus?
Not <strikethrough>much of</strikethrough> a thinker, me HKoC, but still....PG is not what it can be....yet. Do not undermine what which MAY give them(new players) something. Seriously, player retention rates are real low due to this and a lot of other things.


PS:Ok, I understand Quetzcoatl's point...(Phew! the spelling's tough man! Fortunately, I know the original Qtzctl's story...) But nigh monotonous nation/guild policies will still be a trouble. Do not start guilds unless ideas are really different and helpful(Though we find many guilds with many . PLS note that the starting page gives one the option of a pirate, noble and merchantman in the start.....(long ago_huh? remeber any of those irrelevant storylines?)