One guild per character in EverQuest Next? Or more?

If he is, then I think it is misdirected.

There should be no guild "levels" in EQN.

If they can figure out some way to allow guilds to add their own "abilities" as characters do, then maybe that's OK. But I wouldn't require it in order to have guilds.

I think you can achieve that with guild quest (gather material, craft this and that, complete another quest, have a certain number of players on your guild, etc..) You unlock a perk, guild bank slot, or whatever upon quest completion.

Keep it simple. Stop the gold farmers and scammers from profiting from the guild exploits easily.

I understand you think it is in game but like many others posting here for greater separation what you believe to be adequate in game is not fulfilling the needs of all the players.

A server is a place where one HAS to play
a guild/social group is a CHOICE of who one decides to play with
Content options are a CHOICE one makes depending on ones mood but can be limited by the CHOICE of who one plays with.

Here is what tiers add.

The Old Model
Large Raid Guild declares raids 5 nights a week. 3 nights a week not enough members show up for various reasons.
Raid leader says to members "Ask your friends to come BUT here are the rules on loot." and actively recruits to increase turnout
Large guild recruits more players and now has to pick and choose who goes because 5 nights a week 8 extra's are logged in.
members get mad at never being picked, or not picked enough, and quit guild.
Rinse.
Repeat.

The "Fix"
Reward large guilds with perks so players stay.

The Result
Large unhappy guilds with members who ignore and avoid each other joined for the common goal of perks.

The Tiered setup. (using the names I originally mentioned)
Army Leader sets up raid schedule.
Members of all alliances show up and end up with not enough players or to many. Maybe 90% from one guild and 10% from other.
Army leader broadcasts to all guilds, unit's and families associated with the Army for additional interested players who might not have signed up.
Army fills gaps in raids with casual players who like to dabble at but not pursue raids.
Army thrives, Army succeeds, Army members are happy.

I have, in my many years of MMO's, been a part of numerous small, casual, close knit guilds and a few larger ones. I choose the small groups every day of the week and twice on Tuesdays because they are socially more fun for me as the player at my pc. The one exception is that having THIS or some other type of in game option for a chance to dabble in aspects of the game I don't focus on would have been great.

There are many aspects in games where a player's choice shouldn't be all or nothing. Options that allow a player greater choice and flexibility are not game killers when done right.

Ahh, kk... I guess, to be honest I do like the Idea of Guild levels.. Just make the levels massive, more like tiers than levels.. Tier 1 guild, can get a small plot of land or rent a small GH. Tier 2 Med land.. etc...

How do you guys feel about something like this?
This system will allow guilds to remain special in the game, while allowing people to have multiple custom social groups for themselves, and add one person in multiple groups, if they wish so.

sooooo... in summary:

I - One player per guild OR One player multiple guild?
II - Vertical Guild System OR Horizontal ?
III - Guild Management Tools
IV - Guild Perks

Anything else to the list?

I don't know what games you have played but in WoW it did matter what character you had and people at same server flamed people in trade chats if they did something wrong etc, and if u didnt have good gear enough you couldnt join etc. what im saying is that if you got more guild types to join... it will lower the rate of people leaving or getting kicked. Reason is because its still the same that people might not invite or kick if u dont meet their standards... it just takes away the risk of people in other guilds trying to snatch members etc because the guilds will be more concentrated at what type they are and people will wanna stay there because of that reason. thats why its better to have more guilds with different types than just 1. and if a guild has bad reputation its just as simple as having discussion with other guild leaders or officers etc if they get offended if you are in that other one because they got bad reputation. Then its just to make a decision.

You have a choice of what server to play on. If the only reason you are in a guild is for the benefits then if you want the benefits the guild is required. So your argument is invalid.

A guild/social group is a choice. You do not have to join the guild, if you and your friends are unhappy leave and form your own guild. There is that smaller group you wanted. If you still want to raid I guess you better come to an agreement with a raiding guild.

Content is a choice. And a part of that choice is do I want to see higher content that requires me to join a larger or more organized guild. If the answer is no, then stay in your small friends and family guild.

Your example of the old model is completely flawed and it is flawed due to organizations as you would like them. A large guild is not worth anything if the members do not actively work together. That is the benefit of the guild, not ridiculous perks like 2% better loot chance.

The fix: Reward players who actively work together by allowing them to complete more content. Players who only want to play the game like your current WoW type games by themselves or with a friend or two, will not see content until they learn to be more social.

The result: Guilds that actually mean something. A large guild to me does not equal power. The power comes from the guilds ability to complete tasks together. That is their perk.

In EQ1 I can count the number of guilds I was a part of on one hand. My first guild I joined because many of my friends on the game were in it. I eventually realized I wanted to see more content and joined a raiding guild. This guild did not reach content fast enough due to the lack of requirements. As a result me and my friends over a couple of months decided to join a new guild. I quit the game with this guild when it fell apart 8 years later.

In any other game. I barely even log on the game before I have guild invites coming. Guilds mean nothing to me because they require one person to type in a name to be formed.

I guess I am the minority here. I would like to see a multi guild system.

My Guild < BLAH >
Rangers 101
and maybe like
Qeynos street homemakers

Well I started with EQ1 in 99. I still play.

I tried WoW in like 2007 or something, it took me about 1 week to max level solo. It took another week of half afking in bg to be fully pvp gear ready for arena. Then I could easily by a 2k arena team because it was easier to compete at the 2k level than it was 1500-<2k. Then I soloed the arena because the playerbase in WoW sucked. I quit.

I then went to AoC which was the same boring solo quest grind. I quit.

Then I went to Darkfall which was fun but the GM corruption was a turn off.

Then I went to Rift, surprise surprise another WoW clone. (I should say an EQ2 clone).

Then on to SWTOR, what do you know, a WoW clone.

Then I went to DFUW it was fun for a little while but the lack of content and just pvp content makes it boring.

Now I am hoping you WoW players will stop trying to influence your WoW garbage into EQN.

The point was to show that they do not need to be connected associations, nor is it the same as multi-guilding when you use only the word guild itself.

Although I dont share the same opinion, don't lose faith. SOE has not take any decision yet. So, there is still hope.

Sigh. All of your arguments against others within this thread have been based on them being wrong because how you view the game "should be" is right.

Well played. I hope EQN ends up the game you want.

I agree,you can always leave
But why does it have to be the way that can cut people to the core when people leave their guild or decline an invite?
IF a way better system is possible that promotes socializing and helps you to make good decisions when it comes to joining a social group..
Perhaps social groups need a probationary period "supporter" that can recommend the group if they turn out to like it
as a supporter you can also play with the guild but are not bound to it.then you have the classic member to a guild.
A system that takes socializing as their focus is a very light hearted system,taking away the unpleasant things like the need to reject a guild/group of people,leave one group to join
another when you love both.

That you don't like the guild you want to leave is not always the case you see..still the old system forces you to turn your back on one of these groups.
Think timezones,your goals drifting apart in the much to general concept "guild",...

offering different types will help players find a social groups that match their goal(s)
A group could still demand that one is always active in theirs.But then it is up to the player to decide if he/she wants to be in such a guild.
The game should not dictate that for us by offering 1 restricting choice to all

One guild per character is what I ultimately ended up choosing. That doesn't mean it can't be expanded on. But I feel characters/people should have a hard decision to make when they join a guild. What is the right set for them. Guild hopping has never appealed to me; It just shows you have no commitment to something other than yourself.

Thats not to say that alliances and things don't have a place. But I don't think the alliance idea should be character specific, but guild specific. Guilds create alliances amongst themselves, akin to how Lineage 2 did it. I wouldn't want to see it done like GW1 where you choose NPC alliances. Everything NPC related should be character specific since the way the AI works and how it records all your actions.

Guild to Guild alliances should be static in their implementation. But the character to NPC alliances should be dynamic and ever changing based on your actions in the game.

I just do know how it could hurt being in more than one guild. Let say i have a huge mansion, and the people are kinda in my "House" so why cant I have my own group (not a literal group for questing) and still be in a guild. Not just Sur name or chat channel. Aeya DarkGuard of House Aesir
<Faith of the Forsaken>

Also to add to my last comment even make the joining a house a title option
example go from Aeya DarkGuard, The Blahh to my last example.

I see these as 2 very different things. The point of doing away with character leveling is to not have this on rails feel to it. You will still be leveling in other ways like improving on your class. I see guild leveling or something like it, some way of improving your guild as another way of adding in content, and also another way of showing "This guild works." There is a lot they could do with guilds to improve the guild system, I see no reason why it should be avoided, it would be a wasted opportunity.

Why would I argue with somebody I believe is correct? I typically do not argue with somebody with the same opinion I do on topics that are completely opinionated.