One guild per character in EverQuest Next? Or more?

I would prefer to have a large raiding guild (made up of 5+ clans), and smaller clans(made up of 5-30ish characters)... characters in clans could share the same sur name, like "Bremmon Sparklytoes" of the clan Sparklytoes. Clans would function much like guilds do in other games, guilds would be more of a raiding /craft/pvp alliance. What ever your flavor is.

There have been suggestions similar to this, but I dislike the forcing of it.

Let the guild decide how they want to 'splinter' their groups, if at all. If you want all of your members to be in one 'guild' then so be it. If you want to have completely separate factions ('sub-guild' A-F) then that's your option too. However, you might want to have different sub-groups that you can be in one or more of ('crafting,' 'officers,' 'administration,' 'raiding,' 'pvp,' 'roleplay,' etc).

Allow the players the ability to customize their guild, rather than trying to force artificial means of organization.

They could always allow you to join more than one guild.... say a PVP guild and a Crafters guild.. as for what you are saying sixfootturkey that would be done on a clan level. This would also give guild halls a purpose... you want to craft something you have to travel to the guild hall to make it or learn how to make it...Or you want to organize a pvp group.. travel to your pvp guild hall and do so.

Hmm, so we might just be having terminology differences here. I prefer one unit, whether clan or guild, and nothing else really matters. The 'subgroups' you have can be called whatever you want (you can call them guilds, factions, splinters, cells, etc), but we should probably keep things simple for discussion's sake... As currently a 'guild' is the thing you join, we may as well use that for the 'master' guild?

I dunno... *shrug*

I think you and Bremmon are onto something here. The most heated discussions in this thread tend to be really in how we think about organization, be it one large group with sub-groups or several groups able to tie themselves together. In the end people are going to use the system to make what they want, and that's how it should be. The rest is artificial restraint. You can't hold back imagination.

I think multi guilds is a great idea, it would be helpful cause 90% the time most guilds are fail or struggling, and asking for help half the time is no response. Personally tho, I myself would like to see no guild system. Why should people get perks just for being in a high level or big guild? I also think it takes away from the social view of the game. People simply are not inspired to meet other people if they already getting everything they need or handed to them....

You're assuming you get massive passive/active perks for being in a guild...

Personally, removal of guilds would be horribly detrimental to the game. I'm for single guild characters, though for far more customization options within the guild structure and how you manage it.

I don't really feel strongly one way or another, but I fail to see why anyone would want to be in multiple guilds. So long as you give us chat channels, we can still have "Social Groups" within the game, but leave the guild as a unique social group that also comes with a guild tag, and possibly other things like guild halls, guild colors, etc.

I used to think multiple guilds were great.

Then i played Guildwars 2 and saw what damage it did, multiple guilds cause issues such as people focusing on one guild more than another and players getting angry at others, some abuse multiple guilds by only joining for guild events when it suits, then ignoring the guild for other "better" guild events buffs etc..

It cause no end of dramas.

Multiple linkshells (guilds) worked great in FF XI. You just turned on whichever one you wanted to be a member of at that moment.

If I want to join a raiding guild and a crafting guild, why not? And no, I don't think it's any of raiding guild leader's business unless I choose to tell him. He certainly shouldn't have the ability to "see" what other guilds I'm a member of unless I explicitly grant him that privilege.

And to the poster above me: all that drama happens all the time with one guild per character.
People don't need a reason to create drama, they always create some with the tools at hand.

I fell badly for the 90% (your number ) of guilds that have failed. I was lucky enough to be in a great guilds and I have been in a couple of not-so great too. Because of my positive experience with guilds I see how much the right guild has given me. I made friendships - played longer and experienced more of the game because of them. Running the same content over and over was even less tedious because of my guildmates. I helped and was helped. This has happened (with less frequency) out of guild too even though sometimes I needed it and sometimes I did not.

I do agree that people should not get perks for simply being in a guild-for me the rewards of being in the right guild are more than enough.

I like the idea of there being more than one way to group/sort one's self in the game. Family, Village/Town/City, Guild, Religion, etc. should all be meaningful and have some kind of mechanic that makes them useful in the world of EQN. For instance, the ability to band together with other members of the same religion and build a temple that is only usable by other members of the same faith would be interesting and fun, IMO. But that project and it's implications should not interfere with your ability to have a guild and construct a guild-hall. Likewise, one's guild membership or religion should not prevent gathering a community together to plant a village and to have guards and merchants who treat non-citizens worse than they do citizens.

This is a tricky question given the design of the game where one player can fit all molds. Traditionally you have 1 role, and you fulfill that role for a particular group of people (one guild). However, you may have 10 roles you are at a high level of proficiency at in EQN, and in a different guild different aspects of your character will be valued differently based on the composition of the group. This sparks an interesting debate where if we consider lockout timers, competing spawns, etc. you can have quite the debacle on your hands if you had overlapping interests between the two. That could be a huge source of conflict.

So I'm siding with the multiple guild types, providing distinctly different functionality, and you can only belong to one of each. Having membership with 2 raising guilds would potentially force you to choose which group you did a dungeon with, if there was a lockout functionality. But there's certainly value in having a crafting/trade guild to support your network for advice, and assistance regarding a recipe, etc.

I think this is the most practical solution that leaves less room for having to 'pick sides' if you've got a conflict of interest.

First, sorry for my english but i'm a french... (oh noooo!)

Multiple guild possibility will only make those guild looking big but only filled with "ghosts" like GTA online ones. With multiple guilds, you completely break the purpose of a guild. If you take the time to look at it in every plan (social, emotional response, guild attachment, community, caring, family feeling) you will see why multiple guild will be a big failure. The guild is like the online family and we can only have one family.

The best idea, i think, is only one guild AND a customizable friends/contact list with customizables contact groups names like friends, family, funny, crazy, crafters, bounty hunter, half-god , etc

Maybe ingame social group chats like "Union of explorers" to find quest/raid/adventure helpers or "Union of weaponsmiths" for weapons making/buying/selling/trading/idea/etc. A preset list of those general chats. We need the possibility of making our own chat room too (Public and on invite only). This could be a great tool for group making/planing from differents sources (for party planing before making one).

Well ok, but they aren't trying to say multiple guilds of the same type. They're trying to say players can have guilds for different activities and mix them. Chat options are cool, but they are really trying to do something new here (which I think is really cool).

You have a social group. You have a guild that kills stuff (and is always taking in new members, unlike your social group where you can trust people with more stuff). You have a crafting guild that pools resources (because small traditional guilds have problems with resources, having a separate group for crafting means they will be more useful). Your grouping guild can join an alliance of others like them to raid, so you can be in a relatively small guild and still tackle tough boss monsters.

That way you don't need "raiding guilds" full of a-holes (because they have to be huge and are harder to manage), and your small social guild doesn't have as many problems with resources, or being able to reliably supply a group.

If you are a player who never crafts, just don't join a crafting guild. If you are a player that doesn't want to group regularly but wants to raid on weekends, join an alliance but skip the guild. If you want a little of everything, join one of each.

I am in favor of it. BTW your english is much better than my French.

Well said, a lot of people who speak primarily English couldn't do better I too think a lot of guild slots could become ghost slots in guilds that may multi-guild. I think a lot of those people may have good intentions at first, and then as time goes on, settle into one or two primary guilds.

I know I'm not...

However they stated they would like it such that you can be in multiple guilds without actually saying what that meant... They didn't say 'a guild of a type that is meant for raiding,' they said 'a guild for raiding.' For all we know, they're assuming you will join a different guild for each aspect of the game you enjoy, and that there won't really be restrictions on joining two guilds that want to raid. Heck, why can't you just have the 'We Actually Raid' crafting guild; that's exactly as it sounds, it's a crafting guild... but actually just a secondary raiding group; they don't craft.

I say one guild. That's it, just let people organize their guilds as they wish.

As for alternative methods of organizing/grouping/socializing/scheduling/etc? Give the players as many tools as possible.

Here's to hoping they don't overlook things while they pat themselves on the back.

Way to go Hookey I agree with you 100%

In their response they describe players' social needs conflicting with which guild is better in practicality for them, they suggest different kinds of guilds. They didn't spell it out like I did, but it would be cool if they did.

If different kinds of guilds were set up differently you wouldn't join a "we actually raid" crafting guild. If a crafting guild only has the capability to pool resources, help with builds, and facilitate group crafting quests, then that's all they'll do. Just because we're attaching the word "guild" to these groups from our previous MMO experience doesn't mean it has to work like a traditional guild in another game. Grouping/progression guilds would. That's why you should have one guild of a given type.

If they all DO work like a traditional guild in another game, the guild's function is to do all of this (raiding, grouping, being friends, crafting). It makes it harder to find a good guild, because few guilds do all aspects of play well. But if they work like that, then I am for one guild.

I would like to see them do something new, though.

Oh right, the other issue is if you want to do more than one thing with the same guild. If there aren't perks, it doesn't really need to be a guild. If there are, then you're leveling (and moderating, administrating, etc) multiple guilds, just because your raiding guild also crafts...